We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Viewpoint |

The American Board of Surgery Maintenance of Certification Program Building on Past Successes

Mark A. Malangoni, MD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1American Board of Surgery, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
JAMA Surg. 2015;150(8):697-698. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.0885.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


This Viewpoint describes the American Board of Surgery Maintenance of Certification Program.

Board certification began nearly a century ago by defining standards to recognize physicians who had developed specialized skills based on their training or experience. Since then, medicine has had the privilege of self-regulation regarding requirements for specialty practice, and certification by a member board of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) has become the de facto standard for physicians practicing allopathic medicine in the United States.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment
Posted on June 4, 2015
Karl Stecher (M.D.)
retired neurosurgeon
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
I don't agree that the newer procedures were the main factor in pushing for recertification in the 1970s. As I recall, it was done to fend off government meddling in the practice of medicine/surgery: We will do it so you (the govt) won't force your uninformed rules upon us. After about 17 Boards had agreed to do this, it came to neurosurgery. Someone pointed out that we had already passed a most rigorous test when we took the Boards originally, and that neurosurgeons already needed many hours of meeting attendance to keep up membership. After about another dozen years, recertification was forced upon neurosurgeons, too.Most doctors voice that the recertification takes many hours away from patient care, is expensive, and does not really address how a physician interacts with and takes care of patients. The expense part of it is now a battleground, especially with the low reimbursement for services given to doctors today from insurance companies, and, worse still, Medicare and Medicaid.Further, surgeons generally operate in hospitals or multimember surgicenters where they are continually subject to ongoing peer review.
Reforming MOC
Posted on June 4, 2015
Lawrence A. Danto, MD FACS
UC Davis
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
While all you say about the ABS and it’s history is true, I would challenge the statement that our patients know or really even care about the board status of their surgeon. While of seeming benefit, I am unaware that MOC has even been studied and shown to be of value. The MOC process can be reformed without sacrificing quality of care.
Submit a Comment


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles