• linkedin
  • Increase Font
  • Sharebar

    MOC: Members of the UT editorial board weigh in

    In conjunction with Urology Times' recent coverage of maintenance of certification (MOC) (See "MOC: 84% of urologists dissatisfied with current process," "Look for MOC changes in 2017, American Board of Urology says," and "Update: States limit the role of specialty certification"), we asked several members of the UT Editorial Advisory Board to weigh in with their thoughts on MOC. Their responses follow.

    Jeffrey E. Kaufman, MDDr. Kaufman“I knew there was widespread dissatisfaction over MOC, but these survey results are eye opening. I suspect urologists would feel it’s much more valuable if it was easier to maintain.”

    Jeffrey E. Kaufman, MD

    Santa Ana, CA




    J. Brantley Thrasher, MDDr. Thrasher“I would equate MOC to a basic flight review that I have to do periodically to test my proficiency as a pilot. The exam requires some study and preparation, and ultimately requires me to brush up in areas where I might be rusty. I don’t always enjoy the task but understand that it helps me remain up to date.”

    J. Brantley Thrasher, MD

    Kansas City, KS



    Brian R. Stork, MDDr. Stork“I thought MOC Part I was straightforward and I actually learned something about BPH and nocturia that changed the way I practice. I know a lot of urologists advocate scrapping the MOC system. I think we have to be a little bit careful what we wish for—whatever MOC is ultimately replaced with, it’s within the realm of possibility, it could be worse.”

    Brian R. Stork, MD

    Muskegon, MI



    Henry M. Rosevear, MDDr. Rosevear“If, out of concern of a decline in its diplomates’ knowledge and skill, the ABU is going to require any of its members to participate in a maintenance of certification process, it’s only logical that the board require all of its members to participate. Why exclude those members who have been practicing the longest from MOC given that, logically, they would have the most to benefit from the process?”

    Henry M. Rosevear, MD

    Colorado Springs, CO



    Barry Kogan, MDBarry Kogan, MD“ABU tries to find the balance between being burdensome and fulfilling its role to assure the public that their urologist is keeping up and is current with all their knowledge and skills. The ABU should try to match the MOC to the urologist’s practice but remember that even specialists frequently take general urology call. It is exactly at that emergency moment (often a night or weekend) when a urologist’s general knowledge and skills are most needed. So if MOC is serve its purpose, it needs to cover some general urology even for subspecialists.”

    Barry Kogan, MD

    Albany, NY

    More from Urology Times:

    Clinical pathways: A roadmap to medical success

    Did on-call’s refusal to provide consult lead to loss of testicle?

    Which presidential candidate would be best for health care?

    Subscribe to Urology Times to get monthly news from the leading news source for urologists.

    J. Brantley Thrasher, MD
    Dr. Thrasher, a Urology Times editorial consultant, is professor and chair of urology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas ...
    Henry Rosevear, MD
    Dr. Rosevear, a member of the Urology Times Clinical Practice Board, is in private practice at Pikes Peak Urology, Colorado Springs, CO.


    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Registering is fast and free!

    All comments must follow the ModernMedicine Network community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated. ModernMedicine reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part,in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

    • No comments available