From the Editor

Abstract

THE LAST FEW YEARS HAVE DEMONSTRATED that the medical community, medical regulators in particular, responded to the chaos of the Covid pandemic in remarkably creative and mostly effective ways. Adoption of the IMLC, expansion of the scope of telehealth, and emergency licensure were ways many jurisdictions used to facilitate adequate access to care during this time.In “How COVID-19 Emergency Practitioner Licensure Impacted Access to Care: Perceptions of Local and National Stakeholders”, Ann M. Nguyen et al reflect on just this in New Jersey.Historically, CME activity was tracked with paper certificates. Painful. Based on a pilot program, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME®) launched a new Program and Activity Reporting System (PARS) in late 2021. In “Regulators Collaborate to Digitize CME for America’s Doctors” Graham T. McMahon and Humayun J. Chaudhry discuss how this change eases the paper burden for physicians.Prompted by the recent US Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision, David A. Johnson presents “An Historical Perspective on Medical Boards, Disciplinary Actions, and Abortion”. Until Roe v. Wade (1973) medical license revocation by boards frequently stemmed from criminal cases involving abortion. Change is hard. Will history repeat itself in the wake of Dobbs? Are large numbers of such cases once again headed to state medical boards?We broaden our perspectives and consider changes by studying how others conduct medical regulation. Cathal T. Gallagher and David H. Reissner review a series of recent appeals of decisions rendered by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) in “The Concept of Dishonesty in British Medical Discipline”.Resistance is a normal and natural response to change. But without change, we would lose the ability to move forward and lose opportunities for growth and progress that would improve our lives as well as the lives of our patients.