One Small Step For Physician Autonomy

Physicians have been oppressed in the United States for the past 30 years - nearly the entire length of my career. That is not rhetoric. It is a fact. The oppression has occurred at the level of federal and state governments and eventually the businesses that those governments actually support.  A lot of it is documented on this blog and I am not going to repeat it here.  The most recent twist on that oppression has been in the form of maintenance of certification (MOC) actively promoted by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS).  All medical specialty organizations in the United States are members of the ABMS and are forced to abide by its rules.  Some specialty organizations  started their own MOC that did not involve ABMS procedures and they were told they had to all go through the same process.  That process involves testing and intrusive measures into a physicians practice.  It is a major departure away from life-long learning that physicians aspire to and use to shape their individual practices.

The move to MOC was initiated by ABMS on their own and well before there was any debate of the evidence.  As an example, I was board certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) in 1988.  There was no time limitation on the original certifications until 1990.  I was certified Added Qualification in Geriatric Psychiatry in 1991; but that certification was time limited 1991-2001.  I was re-certified in Geriatric Psychiatry ten years later and that certificate states Recertified 2000-2010.  I was also certified Added Qualifications in Addiction Psychiatry 1993-2003.

Somewhere around the time I was due for certification for Addiction psychiatry, I asked myself: "Why are you doing this?" It costs a thousand dollars to take the test.  The test did not confer any special status, privileges, or salary.  It did not change any study habits at all.  I was still attending quality CME courses, reading the literature, and incorporating it into my practice. I was teaching and that is always associated with needing to know a lot more about current debates in the field as well as the representative scientific literature.  Even though I have never failed one of these board exams, there is a ritual of needing to take time off and study material that may not be immediately relevant to your practice - medical and psychiatric trivia that is an essential part of standardized test gamesmanship.  So I decided no - I am a professional. I am at the top of my game and all indications are that things are going well.  Even if they weren't, a thousand dollar board exam or even MOC procedure is not remedial.  It does not provide any feedback. It is essentially a prep school exercise of jumping thorough another hoop.  You either make it or you don't.  At that time there had been 7 hoops* and that was enough.  I stopped the process at that point. 

My guess is that a lot of other physicians saw the light the same way that I did.  My further speculation is that the ABMS reacted by increasing their leverage first by not issuing lifelong original certifications like they gave me back in 1988 and then making those re-certifications as onerous as possible.  I am not being dramatic when I use the term onerous.  I thought about getting back into the current MOC stream about a decade ago at an APA convention and talked with the ABPN representative at their booth. At the time, he literally could not tell me what I had to do to resume the endless cycle of paying fees and taking tests only that there was even more to do than that.  Not an inspiration to get back into the process.

Since then the ABMS has become much more strident about the MOC process.  They were playing the odds.  Physicians and their professional organizations are generally politically clueless and ineffective.  The best evidence of that is their inability to prevent managed care advocates in both government and business from taking over the field and dramatically decreasing the quality care.  They made arguments about how it was necessary to maintain quality and knowledge in a field.  How does that happen by taking a trivial pursuit style exam with no feedback and a very high pass rate?  How does that happen by basically doing patient satisfaction surveys on my patients - a procedure that is rapidly falling into disrepute in clinical settings. 

In the interest of brevity, I am not going to point out all  of the logical errors or overt conflict-of-interest in the ABMS arguments.  There are many bloggers out there who have done outstanding job of that including Cardiologist Westby G. Fisher, MD, FACC and Psychiatrist Jim Amos, MD.  In the literature the standard bearer against the MOC process has been Cardiologist Paul Tierstein, MD who was instrumental in founding the alternate board certification process through the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS). 

My conclusion after wading through all of the politics for that past decade was to get re-certified though NBPAS for several reasons including:

1.  Meaningfulness -  the existential equivalent of that word meaninglessness has been with me since I read Yalom's classic book Existential Psychotherapy in 1982. Yalom referred to it as the fourth ultimate existential concern - right after death, freedom and isolation.  Becoming a practicing physician is an exercise in delayed gratification.  As an intern and a resident the term "busy work" is used to designate tasks that have to be done but don't seem to advance true knowledge or understanding. It is really not clear what your professional life is going to be like until you are in the field interacting with colleagues and patients and practicing medicine.  Physicians as a group are overachievers, overwork, and compulsively question themselves about their decisions.  They are not work averse at all.  One of the motivators to expend this kind of energy is doing meaningful work.  Dr. Tierstein emphasizes this on the last slide in his lecture.  MOC is busy work and its meaning is arbitrarily defined by outsiders. 

2.  It reflects the original ABMS process - we certify you to go out in the world, practice medicine, and keep up with the theoretical and clinical aspects on your own as a professional.  Working with very bright colleagues providing excellent care for 30 years validates that approach.

3.  It certifies my ongoing work - I hope it is apparent from this blog that I am not a casual reader of the psychiatric literature.  I study it at several levels. I have two rooms in my home that are covered from ceiling to floor with medical and psychiatric literature.  I correspond with interested colleagues around the world.  I attend conferences.  I am working on current research.  I teach. I consider all of this life-long scholarship.  At one point the ABPN suggested they were going to put an asterisk (*) next to the names of lifetime certificate holders unless they participated in MOC.  To me that is an insult to my current work and professionalism. It's like designating me as some kind of steroid user.

4.  The NBPAS certifies continuing medical education credits (CME) - my state medical board asks me to report the total number every three years.  There is a suggestion that they will audit all of my certificates, but in 30 years that has never happened.  NBPAS does not certify you until you meet their CME requirement and send them all of the certificates via their web site.  They have an excellent website that can accept uploads of at least 10 of these documents at a time.  So here is a powerful reason for every state medical board to use NBPAS certification.  It immediately means that CME requirements are met very 2 years and they are certified.     

5.  It reflects what I do in my clinical work - sub-specialization in any field is always controversial.  Does there need to be another division in the field?  Is there enough evidence that it is far enough away from what everyone else is doing to be a separate body of knowledge?  After 30 years of work - I say no.  I still see geriatric patients, patients with general psychiatric disorders, patients with addictions, and patients with medical problems every day.  It's not like I can go to a magical clinic somewhere and just see a patient who only has one problem affecting their brain.  To do a good job, you have to continue to know it all.  It is hard work and there are often not a lot of clear answers, but that's why it is called practice and that's why we love medicine.

6.  It is tremendously cost effective considering what gets certified - the financial incentives for the MOC movement are huge and funded by physicians.  Stepping out of the MOC loop makes a clear statement.

7.  It is view consistent with my political philosophy -   I am from blue collar roots and was socialized to suspect the motives of politicians, businessmen, and even union organizers.  Very little of my experience as an adult seems to counter that perspective.  I see health care being run by the same mechanisms as the financial services industry and not for the benefit of physicians or their patients.  NBPAS certification is an antidote to the ABMS Big Brother approach.  In Dr. Tierstein's video he points out why it is no accident that healthcare companies insist that any physician working for them have MOC.  It is all part of the conflict-of-interest driven ruling class approach to business and regulation that we should expect.

That is why I got the NBPAS certificate.  I understand that there are early career physicians locked into some HMO who are told they need to be in the MOC cycle or they will lose their privileges and job (further evidence BTW of what MOC really is).  I can't understand younger physicians who don't recognize splitting when they see it.  I have read their opinions about how some think they know more than older physicians and how they are more tech savvy and how they are not averse to managed care manipulations.  I will just say that being an expert takes more than writing a smart phone app or thinking that you know every thing in the field after passing the initial board exams.  The true innovators and experts that I know have been doing what they innovated for the past 20-30 years.

The bottom line for this post is irrespective of where you are in medicine, if you ignore the politics you do so at your own peril.

Currently MOC is at the top of that list. 


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA




References:

1: Teirstein P, Topol EJ. Maintenance of Certification Programs and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact--Reply. JAMA. 2015 Sep 1;314(9):952. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.8912. PubMed PMID: 26325571.

2: Teirstein PS, Topol EJ. The role of maintenance of certification programs in governance and professionalism. JAMA. 2015 May 12;313(18):1809-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.3576. PubMed PMID: 25965219; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4751049. 

3: Teirstein PS. Boarded to death--why maintenance of certification is bad for doctors and patients. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 8;372(2):106-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1407422. PubMed PMID: 25564895.

Supplementary:

*  The 7 hoops included part 1, 2, an 3 of the National Board Exams to qualify for a medical license and the subsequent 4 certifications and recertifications by the ABPN.  After thinking about this there were actually 8 hoops because there were actually 2 ABPN ceritifying examinations for psychiatry.  Part One was a written exam on psychiatry and neurology including imaging questions.  Part Two was an Oral Board exam that consisted of two parts.  One half of the day was an examination based on an observation of a videotaped interview. The other half of the day was an examination based on your observed interview of the patient.  Part Two had a higher failure rate probably due to a high degree of subjectivity.  I knew people who failed it more than once. So that is really a total of 8 tests altogether.


         

Question For APA Candidates? OK Here It Is.

"Why are there no leaders with vision in the APA who can focus us on the best science and the best psychiatry to provide treatment for individual patients with severe mental illnesses?"


I got a message today that I should craft a question for the American Psychiatric Association (APA) candidates.  It is election season and the LinkedIn forum is apparently the place for political debate.  I can recall asking a question last year along with James Amos, MD (The Practical Psychosomaticist).  The questions had to do with Maintenance of Certification (MOC) and the arduous recertification schedule that was essentially invented by the American Board of Medical Specialties.  Dr. Amos has done more to maintain this issue at a high level of visibility than any other psychiatrist.  That includes looking at the paucity of evidence that it is superior to life-long learning and CME as we all know it.  I  went to LinkedIn to look for my post from a year ago and it wasn't there.  The earliest post is from April 29, 2013.  This is a forum that was suggested to replace the long running member-to-member (M2M) listserv managed by the APA.  It was in M2M that members learned their concern about the MOC issue would be ignored despite overwhelming support on the basis that only 25% of the members voted and a 40% vote was required to pass the measure (see supplementary info below).

The events associated with that vote continue to bother members greatly.   It is seen as a continuing symptom that APA membership does not translate into any support for front line psychiatrists.  We have witnessed decades of increasing rationing and onerous regulations that have been basically brushed off at the level of the APA.  There has been minimal activity in responding to politicians, regulators, and businessmen.  It seems that whatever these special interests want to do - the APA is willing.  We had a billing and coding debacle in the 1990s with the rest of medicine.  Instead of pointing out that this was a purely subjective scheme designed to allow the persecution of any physician, the stance of both the APA and the AMA was "we will give you what you need to be better billers and coders."  We have had three decades of managed care utilization review, prior authorization, and pharmacy benefit managers and the response from the APA has been literature on how to be a better managed care psychiatrist.   There was a lawsuit against some managed care payers for a lack of parity but I don't think there is any evidence that the members who were forced to provide free care have gotten much benefit from that.

The most telling event about where the APA and AMA are at is their full scale cooperation with the PPACA (aka Obamacare) and so-called collaborative care.  In many if not most of those models of care, a psychiatrist collaborates with primary care physicians in treating depression or anxiety in their clinics.  In many of the models, the diagnosis hinges on a rating scale determination of depression or anxiety.  The rating scale score is the diagnosis.  The treatment modality is a medication - usually an antidepressant.  In some models the psychiatric consultant never sees the patient.  I just realized it, but this is all eerily similar to managed care reviewers several states away telling attending psychiatrists how to manage their patients.  This is managed care - a business centered model of providing medical care.  A model that many (myself included) do not consider a valid method of providing medical care.  And yet, the President of the APA and several other psychiatrists promote this as a model of care.  What physician would do 4 years of residency training to sit in an office, look at rating scale scores, and recommend antidepressant doses?  Why would you train all of those years and know all of that theory for such a simple task?

That simplistic collaborative care model captures the primary problem in psychiatric leadership today.  Here we stand at a crossroads.  We are studying the most complex organ in the body and we clearly know more about it now than at any point in the past.  The literature in brain science as it applies to psychiatry is growing exponentially.  We have some of the best thinkers in the world in all areas of the field ranging from pure neurobiology to psychopharmacology to imaging to neuropsychiatry to medical psychiatry to community psychiatry to psychotherapy.  There is so much to learn about the brain and psychiatry and what are we doing with it at a global level?

Nothing as far as I can tell.  The leadership of the APA is locked into a mindset from the Clinton administration.  The APA is acting like we have a responsibility as a profession to address bloated mental health statistics and provide population-based psychiatric care to the masses.   We have a responsibility to provide cost-effective care to the masses.  We have a responsibility to fight stigma wherever we find it because this is the real reason why people, governments, and insurance companies discriminate against psychiatrists and their patients.  We have to grin and bear it when some clown attacks the profession despite the fact that thousands of our colleagues go to work everyday and many toil with inadequate resources, impossible conditions, a lack of cooperation and they still get the job done.  Thrown into the breech with no support, front line psychiatrists are still getting the job done.

The APA on the other hand has done very little to support that effort.  APA officials seemed to breathe a sigh of relief about the vote on the MOC issue.  I heard one of them speak about it at a local meeting.  She told us all about how the new certification fees were really not a windfall for the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN).  This was really an expensive process after all.  I finally learned that this was really an initiative by the ABMS and that participating boards did not really have a choice.  If most of the boards voted for recertification all of the boards had to participate even if they voted against it.  I had learned about 10 years ago that the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology ( ABO+G) had a robust program that consisted of didactic material every year that was designed to bring all members up to speed.  A test was taken every year on that well defined information.  At the time there was no MOC and to me it seemed like an ideal program to assure that all members of a particular specialty were up to date and studying relevant information about what was important for the specialty.  For a while, I promoted this model as the preferred model for ongoing professional learning.    The APA does provide a similar program called Focus that could naturally fill the same role.  Typical MOC exams are not on a focal body of material and the pass rates are high.  Candidates of all specialities typically take time off of work (an off of vacation) to study for these examinations in addition to paying high examination fees for a test that is designed for the test makers and not the test takers.  A test of random facts for the purpose of recertification is not the same thing as a test for professionals to assure they are all up to the same standard.

The APA has just completed a much criticized multi-year effort of revising the DSM and producing the DSM-5.  I think that has been a good effort and with the associated online material it is a definite advance relative to previous editions.  That does not mean I am in agreement with everything in the book, or think that all of the diagnoses in that text exist.  I do think that it covers all of the major diagnoses and severe mental illnesses that psychiatrists treat.  On an academic and clinical level the APA needs to do much more.  Hospitals and clinics currently are being run by administrators with mixed agendas.  We are seeing business people conduct psychiatric care.  The APA used to provide comprehensive guidelines for the treatment of aggression in inpatient settings.  It used to have timely treatment guidelines describing the role of psychiatry and what the standards of care are.  By abdicating that role, we now have business organizations and nonprofessionals dictating care for people with severe mental illnesses.  We have psychiatrists who have to defend their care against those nonprofessional guidelines every day.   That is hardly the expected behavior of a professional organization.

Any psychiatrist should be concerned about the fact that their professional organization does not seem to support the members doing the work of psychiatry.  Any psychiatrist should be concerned that the APA does not vigorously defend the profession and that it seems to have adapted the pseudoscientific methods of governments and managed care organizations.  Any psychiatrist should be concerned that the APA has adopted the questionably valid ABMS preparatory school model of professional education that is unfocused and a waste of time and money.  Any psychiatrist should be concerned about the fact that we have some of the greatest minds in American medicine in our medical institutions and our professional organization is lurching back to the Clinton administration of the early 1990s.  Back to the time when a few political insiders thought that managed care was a good idea.  All of these things considered the question I will post to the candidates is:  

"Why are there no leaders with vision in the APA who can focus us on the best science and the best psychiatry to provide treatment for individual patients with severe mental illnesses?"
 
That is how I was trained and how every psychiatrist I know was trained.  It is time our professional organization consistently gives us what we really need.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



Supplementary 1:  This was the APA 2011 election report I got on the following referendum to basically eliminate patient feedback and maintain a cognitive exam very 10 years.  Although the APA maintains that it requires a vote of 40% of the voting members, the vote to support these measures exceeded the votes for the President Elect and the Secretary (both national candidates) by 1373 and 1388 votes respectively. (Reported February 18, 2011)

The APA was petitioned by members to hold a referendum on the issue of informing the ABPN as follows regarding its proposed maintenance of certification requirements.

1) The patient feedback requirements for the purpose of reporting to the Board is unacceptable, as it creates ethical conflicts, and has the potential to damage treatment.

2) The requirements other than a  cognitive knowledge examination once in 10 years, regular participation in continuing medical education, and maintenance of licensure, pose undue and unnecessary burden on psychiatrists.

Member Referendum	Support	5,525 (80%)
	Do not support	1,418 (20%)

The referendum did not pass. APA received ballots from 25% of the voting members.

The APA Operation Manual states the following regarding member referendums: “The adoption of a referendum shall require (a) valid ballot from at least 40 percent of the voting members, (b) the affirmative vote of at least one-third of all the voting members of the Association, and (c) the affirmative vote of a majority of those members who return a valid ballot.

Supplementary 2:  Another one of the sorry miscalculations made by the APA and its officers is the image it projects to potential trainees.  Applying the dynamic I point out in this post, any potential resident ends up asking themselves:  "Why would I want to join a speciality that seems to want its members to have less expertise than they used to rather than more?  What other speciality does that?"  I tried to address that as a response to a current resident written on his blog and for some reason the response was never posted.  You can read his original post here and my response below:


The most significant reasons why psychiatry has the image problem that you discuss is that the profession is politically inept and our largest professional organization is not addressing the problems that psychiatrists face on a day-to-day basis on the front lines. The biggest front line problem is that practically all systems where psychiatrists work have mercilessly slashed resources for treating the mentally ill. We also seem to attract a number of ideas from critics that are not helpful. The example you posted about a prescriber with watered down qualifications is a case in point. In what other specialty does anyone suggest that the practitioners of the future should be less qualified?

That type of nonsense only happens in psychiatry and it is completely inconsistent with current research. In this weeks’s Neuron there is a perspective on Computational Neuropsychiatry. As neuroscience becomes more relevant to daily practice psychiatrists need that level of training in addition to medical and psychotherapy skills. We seem to have a lack of visionaries right now who can put all of that together.

I would encourage psychiatrists of the future to be thinking more along these lines, than the rationed managed care model of care that is currently being promoted. It turns out that “cost-effective” psychiatric care is frequently the same as no care at all.

GD

Evidence based Maintenance of Certification – A Reply to ABMS

The politics of regulating physicians is no different than politics in general and that typically has nothing to do with scientific evidence.  From the outset it was apparent that some people had the idea that general standardized exams with high pass rates and patient report exercises would somehow keep all of the specialists in a particular field up to speed.  That assumes they were not up to speed in the first place.

As a member of a professional organization embroiled in this controversy it has give me a front row seat to the problems with physician regulation and how things are never quite what they seem to be.  From the outset there was scant evidence that recertification exams were necessary and with the exams no evidence that I am aware of that they have accomplished anything.  The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) actually has a page on their web site devoted to what evidence exists and I encourage anyone to go there and find any scientific evidence that supports current MOC much less the approaching freight train of Maintenance of Licensure or linking MOC to annual relicensing by state medical boards.  Feel free to add that evidence to the comments section for this post.

Prior to this idea there were several specialty organizations that had their own programs consisting of educational materials that were self study courses that could be completed on specific topics relevant to the specialist every year.  A formal proctored examination and all of the examination fees that involves was not necessary.  The course topics were developed by consensus of the specialists in the field.  A couple of years ago I watched a CME course presentation by a member of the ABMS who pointed out that three specialty boards (of a total of 24) wanted to continue to use this method for relicensing and recertification.  They were denied that ability to do that because the ABMS has a rule that all of the Boards have to use the same procedure that the majority vote on.  The problem was that very few of the physicians regulated by these Boards were aware of the options or even the fact that there would be a move by the ABMS for a complicated recertification scheme and that they would also eventually push for it to become part of relicensing in many states.

If the ABMS is really interested in evidence based practice, the options to me are very clear.  They currently have no proof that their recertification process is much more than a public relations initiative.  Here is my proposal.  Do an experiment where one half of the specialists to be examined that year complete a self study course in the relevant topics for that year.  That can be designated the experimental group.  The other half of the specialists receive no intervention other than self study on their own for whatever they think might be relevant.  Test them all on the topics selected for the self study group and then compare their test scores.   See who does better on the test.  Secondary endpoints could be developed to review the practices of each group and determine whether there are any substantial differences on secondary measures that are thought to be relevant in the tested areas.

Until this straightforward experiment is done, the current plan and policies of the ABMS are all speculative and appear to be based upon what has been called conventional wisdom.  Conventional wisdom appears to be right because all of the contrary evidence is ignored.  There is no scientific basis for conventional wisdom and it falls apart under scrutiny.  Physicians in America are currently the most overregulated workers in the world.  The rationale for these regulations is frequently based on needing to weed out the few who are incompetent, unethical, or physically or mentally unable to practice medicine.  Many regulatory authorities grapple with that task and maintaining the public safety.  In many cases it is a delicate balance.  But we are far past the point that every physician in the country should be overregulated and overtaxed based on conventional wisdom because regulatory bodies are uncomfortable about their ability to identify or discipline the few.   If the ABMS or any other medical authority wants evidence based safeguards for the public based on examination performance – it is time to run the experiment and stop running a public relations campaign to support the speculative ideas of a few.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA    

How Can Psychiatry Save Itself? Part 2.

Ronald Pies, MD just published his second article in a two-part series on "How American Psychiatry Can Save Itself". This essay contains specific recommendations for change. I was surprised to see that it was written from the perspective of "the American public is disenchanted with psychiatry and how the profession needs to address these issues". He attributes the public relations problem to a number of factors including the lack of "robustly effective, well-tolerated treatments", ties to the pharmaceutical industry, the declining use of psychotherapy, the public's lack of understanding of current effective treatments, and essentially political attacks by anti-psychiatry groups and other sources.

It is disappointing to see the formulation of the problem as basically one of public relations. Dr. Pies observes that the public really doesn't care about what was or what is in the DSM or the model that is used for mental illness. It is historically obvious that the only reason that psychiatry has been tolerated over the years has been our availability to treat people with obvious problems. It is difficult to deny that mental illness exists when you have brought your catatonic family member into the emergency department because they have not been able to eat or drink for two days. That fact alone is the reason that decades of anti-psychiatry abuse has been a nuisance but has not destroyed the profession. The main problems these days is that it has morphed into a brisk business for many of our detractors and whatever legitimate media is out there does not seem to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.  In the case of psychiatry there is an incredible amount of chaff.

Dr. Pies has six fairly specific recommendations based on this public relations problem. I have listed them in table below along with my responses. This places him at a distinct advantage because I am in the position of reacting to his statements. I will offer my solutions further along in the article and hope for his rebuttal or the rebuttal of anyone else reading this article.

Dr. Pies	Dr. Dawson
1. Change the name of the DSM to the Manual of Neurobehavioral Disease or MND. Another option would be Manual of Psychiatric Disorders.	I generally avoid the term "behavioral" because it is a political term used by managed care companies to disenfranchise psychiatry or behavioral neurologists to suggest that they know more about human behavior than psychiatrists do.  Every time we use the word "behavioral" rather than psychiatry we lose to somebody.  Neuropsychiatry anyone?
2. Emphasize the importance of suffering and incapacity as hallmarks of disease and eliminate any condition that lacks those features.	I don't think the DSM is that confused in the "Cautionary Statement" or "Definition of Mental Disorder" (xxi) when it describes mental disorders as "a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in individual and that is associated with present distress or disability or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or loss of freedom.” There are additional details.
3. Separating clinical descriptions of disease from research oriented criteria using prototypes for the clinical descriptions.	This might be a useful public relations move but experienced clinicians already do this and there is some movement in DSM5 to already capture this, namely the elimination of schizophrenia subtypes.
4. Understand diagnostic categories as tools in the service of medical-ethical goals.	I think that experienced clinicians also currently do this.
5. Biological data is regarded as supporting but not finding disease categories and the diagnoses would remain clinical.	That is probably a state-of-the-art, but biomarkers may be fast approaching that can define more homogeneous categories of disease and more specific and successful treatments can be offered.
6. Parsimony with regard to the number of diagnostic categories.	Agreed and at some point we should be able to use mechanisms of disease to parse the categories. A hopeful but at this point speculative example would be the role of the ventral tegmental area in both addictions and amotivational syndromes.

From the opinions I have offered it should be apparent that I think this plan is a fairly weak one. In order to come up with a strong plan, the major problem affecting psychiatrists and the delivery of psychiatric services needs to be in clear focus. When I look at Dr. Pies suggested solutions he has public relations and the diagnostic manual in his focus. I suppose you could argue that public relations is always important and that the diagnostic manual is essentially a public relations nightmare particularly when you're considering the arguments of people who are not trained clinicians and who have their own agendas and are looking for easy press.  I don't think the American Psychiatric Association has the resources to engage the thousands of anti-psychiatry and special interest groups who want to make headlines by critiquing the DSM5.

In order to save American Psychiatry the problem needs to be clearly recognized. The single most destructive force to American Psychiatry without a doubt is managed-care and that includes managed care companies that are for-profit, managed care companies that are not-for-profit, pharmaceutical benefit managers, and government agencies that are using managed care strategies to ration psychiatric care.   Within the space of two decades they have essentially shut down half of the inpatient bed capacity, they have turned inpatient units into high-volume and very low quality discharge mills, they have created a similar assembly line in outpatient clinics, they have added hours of free work from physicians frequently to justify their financial decisions, and they claim to be one of the great purveyors of quality treatment in medicine in the United States. How can that travesty possibly be ignored? All of the other threats to American Psychiatry pale in comparison.  We have become a profession that is essentially defined by the managed care industry.

To reverse that trend and actually save psychiatry the following steps need to be taken:

1. Managed care, pharmaceutical benefit managers, and managed-care tactics being applied by the government and government proxies need to be clearly identified as the problem. There needs to be a concerted effort to reverse the political and tactical gains made by this industry and most importantly reclaiming the quality ground. The managed care industry is currently represented by NCQA, and its role as an accreditation entity. Anyone who has looked at their standards for mental health care should be appalled. Every professional organization that has psychiatrists as members should be critiquing this organization and posting their own quality standards.

2. Professional psychiatric organizations need to maintain the edge in terms of quality and standard of care guidelines. We cannot afford to have guidelines that are 5 to 10 years out of date they need to be up-to-date and current. If the American Psychiatric Association is not up to the task, other professional societies should post current guidelines in their areas of expertise. You cannot possibly win political battles against an industry special interest group by using dated and incomplete guidelines and standards of care. An excellent example of psychopharmacology guidelines is available on the British Association of Psychopharmacology website.

3. The education of future psychiatrists is critical and that makes the issue of managed care and assembly-line psychiatry an even more immediate problem. We cannot possibly expect psychiatrists to train for an additional one or two years if they are going to be paid $22 or less to see a patient. There are not enough "medication management" visits in the world to fund for that additional training and a professional salary. Unless concrete changes occur in the practice landscape the future of current psychiatric training is at risk and there is no point in speculating on how it can be enhanced.

4. In the event that adequate funding is available for training and the future profession I would recommend changes in the total time of residency and psychotherapy training but in a different manner than that suggested by Pies.  I would opt for adding a two-year neuroscience rotation and pool resources with departments of neurology and neurosurgery for a joint rotation to focus on the latest neuroscience applications to psychiatry, neurology, and neurosurgery. In the near future genomics and neuroscience will be required training and the associated philosophy can be taught at the same time during discussions of modeling at various levels.

In terms of psychotherapy, the first thing that we can do is recognize the progress that has been made in residency programs as well documented in the Archives article by Weissman, at al.  It was not that long ago that a number of "biological psychiatrists" were walking around and annoying the rest of us by proclaiming that "I don't do talk therapy".  A psychiatrist trained in psychotherapy applies that continuously in their work and uses it to inform the structure of treatment. Some of the best psychiatrists that I have encountered do psychotherapy in as little as 10 or 20 minutes and the patients they saw during that time found those discussions to be very beneficial.

Psychotherapy today can also be informed by the New England Journal of Medicine article written by Kandel over 30 years ago when he described how neuronal plasticity is affected by human encounters. The teaching of psychotherapy today can be used both as a technical tool to teach patients and a heuristic tool to teach staff and residents about human consciousness and its biological basis. Newer forms of psychotherapy such as Acceptance Commitment Therapy and Mentalizing therapy provide theories and an explicit roadmap and how to provide research proven and effective psychotherapy that takes human consciousness into account.

5. Political attacks by prominent government officials cannot be tolerated. It is no longer acceptable to suggest that all psychiatrists are corrupted because some psychiatrists are being paid to give presentations for drug companies or to do research. The suggestion that the DSM5 is corrupted, by ties to the pharmaceutical industry can be dealt with. There are clear strategies to deal with some of the blanket claims by Congressional critics.  I can never understand how an entire profession became criticized because of the fact that some members were legitimately being paid to work by the pharmaceutical industry. I cannot understand how a member of Congress can decide to investigate private employment arrangements between an employee and employer or say nothing when no problems are found. I cannot understand how member of Congress with significant conflicts of interest is allowed to treat our profession with impunity when his conflicts of interest are never discussed.

6. Board certification has become a business that is rapidly aligning itself with the business of running medical boards and managed-care corporations. The goal of ongoing professional education should be to bring all practitioners up to the same standards and there is no reason that board examinations are necessary. There is no evidence that they can achieve that goal. This was clearly an arbitrary political decision by the American Board of Medical Specialties and it should not be tolerated by practitioners in the field. There is precedent for forming independent boards and I would refer to the American Society of Addiction Medicine as a clear example. If the ABMS, is no longer relevant - a better solution would be to form a new board that meets the needs of clinicians instead of purported political goals.

7. Quality based standardization of local practice is an attainable goal. One of the practical problems in any medical specialty is the fact that there are outliers. There is a robust solution to this and the best example I can think of is the Wisconsin Alzheimer's Institute Dementia Diagnostic Clinic Network.  The network is a statewide collaboration of independent clinics that receive guidance and updates from a central university-based clinic specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of dementias. Patients anywhere in the state of Wisconsin or their physicians can refer to a local clinic to receive state-of-the-art diagnostics and treatment recommendations. This model solves two problems for psychiatry. The first is access to state-of-the-art psychiatric treatment and the second is practice drift by practitioners especially the outliers. It also solves a third problem of ongoing education.  There is no reason why collaborative networks like this one could not be established for mood disorders, addiction, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, and personality disorders. Training at all levels could be guided by the principle that psychiatric residents need to have the necessary skills to get into these networks and implement the guidance suggested by the central academic center.

That is the path I would take to save American psychiatry. It is not an easy path but it is a realistic one. Any psychiatrist who has been practicing for the past 10 or 20 years realizes that the practice environment has deteriorated rapidly and despite all of the talk about a shortage of psychiatrists, the current lot of psychiatrists is being worked to death and they are trapped in a paradigm that results in high volume and low quality work.  The main problem is that there is no foreseeable professional organization that can carry it out. The APA does not have the political will, expertise, or leadership to do it and in that regard the future does not look good. I think that also implies that the APA has really underestimated how far psychiatry has fallen and how much they have played a role in that fall.  I see an occasional glimmer of hope, but as long as we have an ineffective structure and an election process that rewards academic achievement rather than a vision for psychiatry in the 21st century, progress will remain difficult if not impossible. We have already been replaced by a generation of "prescribers" in some areas and managed-care and the government would not complain if that occurred everywhere.

George Dawson, MD

Ronald Pies, MD.  How American Psychiatry Can Save Itself: Part 2.  Psychiatric Times March 2012, vol XXIX, No 3: 1, 6-8.

Myrna M. Weissman; Helen Verdeli; Marc J. Gameroff; Sarah E. Bledsoe; Kathryn Betts; Laura Mufson; Heidi Fitterling; Priya Wickramaratne. National Survey of Psychotherapy Training in Psychiatry, Psychology, and Social Work.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63(8):925-934.

Kandel ER. Psychotherapy and the single synapse. The impact of psychiatric thought on neurobiologic research. N Engl J Med. 1979 Nov 8;301(19):1028-37.