09/30/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 2
From: Rod Tomczak, DPM, MD, EdD
Dr. Bisbee, there are a few individuals one should never try to mislead. First is your lawyer about your actions, second is your clergyman about the state of your soul, and the third is Rod Tomczak about medical educational matters, especially podiatric medical education.
In 2020, five years ago, AAOS, ACFAS, AOFAS and the APMA endorsed a four point plan in a White Paper titled “Improving the Standardization Process for Assessment of Podiatric Medical Students and Residents by Enabling Them to Take the USMLE.”
Point three of the four reads, CPME approval of podiatric residency programs should meet comparable standards to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). APMA agreed to this. I call renege. ACGME cannot testify to the equality of podiatry residencies to say, ...
Editor's note: Dr. Tomczak's extended-length letter can be read here.
09/30/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1
From: Robert Scott Steinberg, DPM
This is why AI must be carefully fact-checked!
Dr. Rubin omitted the most critical action that propelled our profession forward in Illinois, namely the two-month student strike at the Illinois College of Podiatric Medicine in the early 1970s. Dr. Scholl was not relevant to that action.
Robert Scott Steinberg, DPM, Schaumburg, IL.
09/27/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION)
From: Ivar E. Roth, DPM, MPH
Bret, I could not agree more with your analysis. We, the profession, have to explore this opportunity. I, like you, feel that the possible loss of income and control has limited the thinking of our leaders. This potential affiliation is too important to not pay full attention to.
Ivar E. Roth, DPM, MPH, Newport Beach, CA
09/24/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION)
From: Kathleen Neuhoff, DPM
I cannot understand how a dialog with ACGME can be bad. It does not commit us to anything. It would allow EVERYONE in our profession to voice their opinion. It would allow the rest of the medical profession the opportunity to learn more about podiatry. Rejecting the offer to dialog makes it appear that we do not have confidence in the value of our profession and are afraid to enter mainstream medicine when we are given the chance. Hopefully, those in power will reconsider.
Kathleen Neuhoff, DPM, South Bend, IN
09/22/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1B
From: Greg T. Amarantos, DPM
Having followed this subject for the past week, it is encouraging that there are so many passionate members of our profession. I applaud all who have responded. I have some observations from experience as a podiatrist (retired) of 41 years, as a residency director who worked with MD and DO residency directors and programs, and as a past president of the Fund for Podiatric Medical Education.
1. Fifty years ago in Illinois, DOs were almost unheard of with the exception of the state of Michigan, and the public knew little of their scope of practice.
2. Sometime thereafter, DOs sued the AMA and after protracted litigation, they succeeded and with that, their recognition became synonymous with MDs.
3. All leaders have egos, myself included. I recognize it is difficult to swallow one's ego for the better good.
4. Residency directors as a whole, are well...
Editor's note: Dr. Amarantos' extended-length letter can be read here.
09/22/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1A
From: Bret M. Ribotsky, DPM
A Critical Opportunity: The Case for Exploring ACGME Podiatric Residency Credentialing: An Open Letter to the Podiatric Medicine Community
The recent expression of interest by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in exploring the credentialing of podiatric residency programs presents our profession with a significant opportunity that deserves thorough investigation. However, the apparent reluctance of organized podiatry to fully explore and negotiate the details of this possibility appears premature and potentially detrimental to our profession’s future growth.
The Opportunity Before Us
The ACGME’s inquiry is not merely administrative—it represents a potential pathway toward full integration of podiatric medicine within the broader medical education framework. This could fundamentally alter how our profession is perceived, how our residents are trained, and how our graduates are recognized within the healthcare...
Editor's note: Dr. Ribotsky's extended-length letter can be read here.
09/20/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1C
From: James Whelan, DPM
The recent decision by the American Podiatric Medical Association (APMA) to decline the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) invitation is both prudent and necessary. While the prospect of aligning with ACGME may seem appealing on the surface, the risks far outweigh the perceived benefits. Podiatry has fought long and hard to establish its own standards of surgical training, professional autonomy, and pathways to credentialing. Turning oversight of residency education over to an external body with no podiatric expertise jeopardizes this progress. ACGME’s track record is strong for MD and DO training, but its framework does not account for the unique surgical depth and scope of podiatric medicine. Dilution of these standards could undermine the very foundation of our profession.
Equally important, the APMA did not act in isolation. Independent assessments by ABFAS, AACPM, ACFAS, COTH, CPME, and multiple state societies reached the same conclusion: participation in the exploratory process posed more risk than reward. This was not a rash decision, but a unified stance across leadership organizations committed to protecting podiatric integrity.
The path forward is not about chasing parity by adopting external validation; it is about strengthening and elevating our own systems. By investing in residency quality, board certification processes, and continuing to advocate for recognition through established podiatric channels, we preserve the autonomy and excellence that set our profession apart. APMA’s rejection of the ACGME task force is not a missed opportunity—it is a reaffirmation of podiatry’s right to define its own future.
James Whelan, DPM, Beloit, WI
09/20/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1B
From: Jon Purdy, DPM
I’m again confused by the post from ABFAS. So there is a “unified” position of some of our podiatric dues driven leaders, without so much as engaging in an “exploratory process?” This could be the best or the worst thing for podiatry, but there is a lack of specifics on any discussion, leading me and probably most others to question if this conclusion is self-serving. I expected something of this magnitude to have a special message from our leaders about what was said to whom, and some pertinent details of the conversation that led them to this critical conclusion. Waving off simple due diligence, of what seems a likely path to inclusion into mainstream medicine, with words like concern, risks, and uncertainty is not what I call transparency.
Would the ACGME form a special podiatry oversight committee? I guess we’ll never know. Could the ACGME improve overall residency quality and continuity? I guess we’ll never know. Could this lead to mainstream medicine’s acknowledgement of how special and significant we are? Absolutely.
Am I to believe “autonomy” for autonomy’s sake is always the best path? Why is the phrase “podiatry eats its own” known by literally every podiatrist? Here’s a perfect example. We should expect more from our leaders who we’ve allowed to pull the strings of this profession. Maybe issues like this and the lack of transparency is the reason for declining membership in what should be our support system.
Jon Purdy, DPM, New Iberia, LA
09/20/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1A
From: Robert Scott Steinberg, DPM
Dr. Purdy hit the nail on the head! The ABFAS Board of Directors' comment proves Dr. Purdy's point.
Robert Scott Steinberg, DPM, Schaumburg, IL
09/18/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1C
From: ABFAS Board of Directors
We commend the APMA for the solicitation of feedback and their detailed evaluation of the proposal to engage with ACGME. In our response to the APMA, we voiced serious concerns about the erosion of professional autonomy, the dilution of surgical standards, and the risks of transferring oversight to an external body lacking podiatric expertise.
We also support the independent assessments conducted by other organizations such as AACPM, ACFAS, COTH, CPME, and many state societies, each of which reached the same conclusion; that participation in this initiative is not in the best interest of podiatric medicine. This unified position reflects our shared commitment to preserving the integrity of podiatric education.
ABFAS Board of Directors
09/18/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1B
From: Ivar E. Roth, DPM, MPH
As I have written earlier, I know of extreme cases of where the residencies failed their residents; like when a recent graduate never did one case skin-to-skin. We need to be part of ACGME to make sure our programs are legit. Unfortunately, we have too many people willing to look the other way and give a pass to a failed program. This has to stop for the betterment of our profession.
Ivar E. Roth, DPM, MPH, Newport Beach, CA
09/18/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1A
From: Jon Purdy, DPM
In reading the response from APMA, I had to take a sideways look at the words: uncertainty, apprehension, and concerns. So, the end result was the APMA not wanting to “participate in an exploratory process.” I’ve always thought the best way to alleviate or validate uncertainty, apprehension, and concern was through the exploratory process.
Nowhere in the response did I read that the ACGME requires signatures, commitment, or anything binding. Additionally, the rationale for this decision was based on “no guarantee the ACGME was interested in creating parity…” Again, I thought commitments and guarantees were end results of exploration and negotiation. I’m not sure what there is to debate in the future if no investigation was performed.
Another confusing word to me was “stakeholders.” Are the practicing podiatrists not the actual stakeholders? The entire response to me was a “tell.” What I inferred from the collective verbiage of the alphabet entities was a “concern” for our leadership positions; an “apprehension” about losing our power; and an “uncertainty” of our inclusion. Is it just me, or shouldn’t the APMA governance documents be irrelevant to “listening” to ideas of any magnitude? Shouldn’t these documents be well understood prior to saying no? At the very least, I guess we know who was involved in the decision-making.
Jon Purdy, DPM, New Iberia, LA
09/17/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1B
From: Rod Tomczak, DPM, MD, EdD
Dr. Bisbee is an expert at the hidden ball trick and passing responsibility for the decision to tell ACGME that the podiatry profession was not interested in having their residencies accredited by the ACGME of medical accreditation organizations. In the second paragraph of her letter, she says, “In recent weeks we had meetings with many stakeholders within the profession to discuss the pros and cons of participating in an exploratory process with ACGME.”
First, the word “secret” was omitted between the word “had” and the word “meetings” in the quoted sentence. Second, it’s amazing how the hoi polloi of this profession are conveniently forgotten concerning what is going on. Mushroom theory of leadership again. Third, ACGME’s offer is an exploratory look/see at the educational process involved in accreditation of our own programs. It’s not like we are turning over Rome to...
Editor's note: Dr. Tomczak's extended-length letter can be read here.
09/17/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1A
From: James DiResta, DPM, MPH
If podiatry is ever to gain parity with MD/DO colleagues, we are going to need comparable educational training and one very important component to that end is recognition of our residency programs by ACGME. APMA could argue that this is putting the cart before the horse but the importance of this discussion by APMA representative stakeholders rejecting the ACGME invitation is a lost opportunity. The "laser focus" excuse given is just simply absurd.
Where the heck are the leadership's priorities? Are you going to wait until HOD meets again next year? I thought we had an alternative pathway when issues of this magnitude needed to be decided outside of that timeline.
James DiResta, DPM, MPH, Newburyport, MA
09/16/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1B
From: Andrew J. Meyr, DPM
Well it's Groundhog Day...again. Another year and apparently we're in for Dr. Rogers leading another disruptive charge at the APMA HOD and another thinly veiled attempt to undermine the CPME.
One of the things that Dr. Rogers didn't disclose in his post is that not only does the APMA Board of Trustees have reservations about his most recent strategy...and make no mistake he was the driving force behind this...but also AACPM, COTH, CPME, ABFAS, ACFAS and several state societies. These are groups that perform due diligence and try to consider all potential ramifications of decisions for their members and the profession, and don't simply act on superficial reactionary public perception. I would encourage PM News readers to review the actual statements from APMA and CPME on the topic, instead of only Dr. Rogers' "Rejects" attempted...
Editor's note: Dr. Meyr's extended-length letter can be read here.
09/16/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1B
From: Edward F. Szabo, DPM
On the surface, it is disheartening to hear that the APMA has rejected the ACGME's offer to serve as the credentialing body for graduate (residency) training in podiatry. I have extensive ACGME experience and think they would preserve the integrity of our training and profession.
It is clear to many of us and any potential applicants that do a minimal amount of research that our profession has problems with graduate training standards and post-graduate credentialing. This directly impacts the ability or financial stability once you begin practice. There are too many residencies not providing adequate surgical exposure. There are too many post-graduate credentialing bodies (Boards). ACGME would help create a recognized and unified standard within the profession.
I recognize that the devil is in the details, and am certain Dr. DeHeer and the APMA want what is best for the profession. Still, I would like to know why the ACGME offer was rejected, when it seems like an obvious step forward for the profession.
Edward F. Szabo, DPM, Evans, GA
09/16/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1A
From: Brook Bisbee, DPM
This summer, APMA became aware that the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has interest in exploring accreditation of training programs outside allopathic and osteopathic medicine. This interest is part of ACGME’s business plan to explore extending their accreditation programs to a variety of other healthcare professions.
After an initial discussion with ACGME, APMA shared this information with the leadership of its component organizations and with the leadership of other large podiatric organizations with a stake in residency training including CPME, AACPM, COTH, ABPM, ABFAS, and ACFAS. In recent weeks, we held meetings with many key stakeholders within the profession to discuss the pros and cons of participating in an exploratory process with ACGME. We also gathered written feedback from stakeholders. The feedback was shared with our Board...
Editor's note: Dr. Bisbee's extended-length can be read here
09/15/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1B
From: Frank Louis Lepore, DPM, MBA
I am deeply disappointed and angered by the American Podiatric Medical Association’s (APMA) decision not to engage in dialogue with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). This choice does not serve the best interests of the podiatric community and risks undermining years of strategic efforts in gaining parity and Board unification of podiatry.
Our profession has worked diligently to achieve parity with our MD and DO colleagues—working with their organization on common ground in the interest of our professions, expanding applicant pools to podiatric medical schools, investing in targeted marketing, and advocating for broader recognition. These initiatives were designed to elevate the visibility and credibility of podiatric medicine. Without collaboration with ACGME, these resources may be better spent elsewhere or may not achieve the intended return on...
Editor's note: Dr. Lepore's extended-length letter can be read here.
09/15/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1A
From: Rod Tomczak, DPM, MD, EdD
ACGME, the accreditation agency for MD and DO residencies and fellowships has invited podiatry into their fold and become the accreditors rather than CPME. Accreditation by ACGME would mean podiatry is officially a specialty of medicine, just like orthopedics or internal medicine. APMA has voted not to accept the ACGME invitation.
When I attended OCPM, we had the opportunity to enjoy a few high quality MD instructors from Case Western Reserve University. One of them was an anesthesiologist who taught pharmacology to the medical students at Case. He constantly munched on Sen-Sen breath mints and challenged anyone who wanted to play racquetball for a dollar a point. I took the dare and lost my weekly allowance. We had a couple of beers after the game and he told me that after WWII, Case offered to assimilate OCPM into the...
Editor's note: Dr. Tomczak's extended-length letter can be read here.
09/13/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION)
RE: APMA Rejects ACGME Task Force
From: Lee C. Rogers, DPM
It is very disheartening to hear that the APMA has rejected the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) invitation to have a discussion about accrediting podiatry residencies and fellowships as a "specialty of medicine." There are so many possible benefits in becoming accredited with ACGME, recognized as the gold standard in medicine which accredits all MD and DO specialty training.
The DOs joined ACGME in 2014, and in the decade following, there was an increase in DO students by 70% and their profession grew by 81%. Yes, there are still many questions, but refusing to participate in the due diligence process to get the questions answered does not serve the profession well. This should be brought to the House of Delegates to decide.
Lee C. Rogers, DPM, San Antonio, TX
08/27/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1C
From: Robert Boudreau, DPM
I was blessed to work in Clifford McEntire’s office as an orthotic technician during my undergraduate studies. He taught me not only how to fabricate orthotics, but the biomechanical principles behind them. It was during this part-time job that I fell In love with the profession of podiatry. As a member of the CCPM Class of 1983, we were privileged to sit at the feet of Merlin Root, John Weed, Chris Smith, Ron Valmassey, Bill Sanner, and others. As such, I feel our biomechanical instruction was excellent. I used their teaching on a daily basis, incorporating it both with and without surgery, for 39 years until my retirement.
I have a few questions: How many practitioners actually watch their patients walk and evaluate their gait before/after surgery? Before/after orthotic dispensing? How many residencies are either specifically dedicated to biomechanics or require rotations in biomechanics, and if so, who is doing the training? As a profession, we stress forefoot, rearfoot, and ankle surgery, but are we equally stressing how orthotics can be utilized peri-operatively?
As a profession, I feel we should stress our biomechanical expertise, the area that truly sets us apart from our orthopedic counterparts.
Robert Boudreau, DPM (Retired), Tyler, TX
08/27/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1B
From: Ben Pearl, DPM
Paul, I am grateful for the many things you have written regarding DME in this and other forums. Regarding there being no "blue ribbon panel" to address the biomechanics situation, I offer that you should spread the word for the virtual biomechanics summit I have offered to students free for the past 4 years. Our next virtual summit with the AAPSM will be Superbowl weekend. I choose to do what I can rather than looking at what has not been done.
Ben Pearl, DPM, Arlington, VA
08/27/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1A
From: Robert Scott Steinberg, DPM
Who was behind CPME's decision to lower the biomechanics requirements in our residency? I'd like to hear from those long-serving APMA delegates on this issue. I want to know who is driving this trainwreck! Is it PFA?
Robert Scott Steinberg, DPM, Schaumburg, IL
08/26/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1B
From: Howard Dananberg, DPM
I’ve been following the thread on how podiatry is losing its expertise in biomechanics. I understand the allure of surgery, but with the pathetic insurance reimbursements, stress, and periodic complications that a surgical practice creates, it’s surprising that designing and dispensing custom foot orthotics doesn’t have greater acceptance. It can be financially rewarding, and patients love them and the practitioners who provide them.
When combined with lower extremity manipulation techniques, many long-term issues can spontaneously resolve as well. And, thinking through biomechanical issues can be a very satisfying academic endeavor and rewarding to both patient and doctor. Think about attending the Richard O. Schuster seminar on October 24 and 26 at NYCPM in New York. Well worth it.
Howard Dananberg, DPM, Stowe, VT
08/26/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PODIATRIC MEDICAL EDUCATION) - PART 1A
from: Douglas Richie, DPM
I fully agree with the observations made by Dr. Kirby regarding the demise of biomechanics in the podiatric profession. The push by leaders in our profession to have podiatric education mirror allopathic medical schools has eliminated the unique advantage that podiatrists previously had in evaluating and treating all foot and ankle pathologies. The APMA Vision 21st Century influenced all of the podiatric medical schools to substantially reduce all formal courses in biomechanics which were replaced by general medicine courses.
In 2022, the Council on Podiatric Medical Education passed CPME 320 which reduced the number of biomechanics cases in podiatric residency by thirty percent. Without adequate biomechanics training, podiatric physicians can only wish to be as good, but not better than our orthopedic colleagues.
Douglas Richie, DPM, Long Beach, CA
