Re: Special credentialing
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Thu Jul 12 11:37:35 2001
there used to be a credentialling process known as Board exams. this is
all about money - pure and simple. another unfunded mandate awaits.
art
At Thu, 12 Jul 2001, RModugno@aol.com wrote:
>
>Any thoughts regarding "special credentialing" and the insurance companies? I
>tend to agree with Dr Abramson ( letter in OB/Gyn News). See below.
>
>Robert Modugno MD MBA FACOG
>Marietta, GA
>
>Too Much Credentialing
>
>Keevan Abramson, M.D.
>Fort Bragg, Calif.
>
>I would like to comment on the article "Extra Credentialing Worries Experts"
>(April 15, 2001, p. 1). I have been performing operative laparoscopy in my
>small rural practice for over 25 years. I learned the advanced techniques
>from a past partner who had personal instruction from Dr. Kurt Semm in
>Germany.
>
>I have attended several courses on laparoscopy and hysteroscopy since then
>and my skills have improved significantly. I have taken care of at least 60
>ectopic pregnancies, mostly by linear salpingostomy. I have removed many
>ovarian cysts and have done many laparoscopically assisted vaginal
>hysterectomies when ovarian removal was indicated. My patients do fine. Other
>than the hysterectomy patients, all leave the hospital in several hours.
>
>Now I read that the Accreditation Council for Gynecologic Endoscopy, simply
>by reviewing my patient list and accepting $500-$750, will certify me as
>having these special skills. A physician at Aetna U.S. Healthcare was quoted
>as saying that the program is "a quality measure to make sure those doctors
>with special expertise are being rewarded."
>
>Hogwash! If I weren't doing fine work my hospital and malpractice carrier
>would certainly know about it.
>
>The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American
>Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology should put a prompt halt to this, as it
>will be used by insurance companies to further reduce the fees paid to
>competent physicians.
--
art fougner, md
A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote.
|
|
