Federation Of State Medical Boards Research Articles

Past Imperfect: Revisiting the History of the Federation of State Medical Boards

ABSTRACT: In 2020, FSMB commenced a closer look at its history to provide a more transparent accounting of past statements, actions and policies evincing bias, discrimination, or racism. There is much in FSMB history that is positive but it is clear that FSMB fell short at times in demonstrating a consistent commitment to values we recognize as integral to a just society. This failure proved especially impactful to international medical graduates (IMGs), osteopathic physicians, women, and persons of color. Vitriolic language, under-representation and bias factored into the FSMB experience of these groups to varying degrees. While some FSMB statements and policies reflected overt bias, more often, inaction or silence characterized FSMB response to discrimination unfolding within the medical profession and society. This can be attributed, in part, to the long period in which FSMB's modest resources created over-reliance upon the profession (eg, the American Medical Association). This dependence resulted in missed opportunities for FSMB to champion priorities committed to the responsibilities and interests of the regulatory community and the public it serves, as opposed to those of the profession. Unsurprisingly, FSMB governance reflected the same power dynamics and lack of diversity seen within leadership in the profession until recent decades. FSMB has taken multiple steps to address past failures: revisiting how it recognizes and honors individual contributors to medical regulation, adopting policy statements and guidelines codifying a commitment to inclusive governance and educational programming. Further actions are possible through naming conventions behind FSMB awards and potential policy addressing the appointive process to state medical boards.

Telling Her Story: Exploring the Role of Women in US Medical Professional Regulation Through FSMB Publications

ABSTRACT Examination of photographs in 100 years of communication from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) illuminates the evolving role of women in professional medical regulation, a little-studied aspect of the history of women in medicine. Over the past century, the FSMB has communicated with professional stakeholders and the public through a variety of publications. Our review of photographic evidence from these sources reveals that women played important supportive roles as staff members and spouses from the beginning of the century. In the mid- to late 1980s, women moved into key governance and executive roles on a relatively consistent basis. Changing social norms, sponsorship from male leaders and early women leaders, and increasing visibility of women from other medical organizations were likely enablers of this change. Future work should explore the implications of women’s involvement in the medical regulatory boards—a question with heightened relevance today, given increasing attention to the boards’ oversight of medical practice, including reproductive healthcare.

The importance of USMLE step 2 on the screening and selection of applicants for general surgery residency positions

BackgroundAs announced by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score reporting has transitioned to pass/fail outcomes instead of the traditional numeric score after January 26, 2022. USMLE Step 1 scores have been used widely as a crucial tool in screening and selecting applicants for residency programs. This study aims to determine the role of USMLE Step 2 in the selection of applicants for general surgery residency. MethodsA retrospective study was conducted over six recruiting cycles from 2016 to 2021. The data from 334 interviewed applicants from one general surgery residency program were assessed. Data analyzed included USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores, applicant gender, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) status, letters of recommendation (LOR), and research/publications (RS). ResultsOf the 334 interviewed applicants, 209 (62.6%) were male. The mean [SD] USMLE Step 1 and USMLE Step 2 C K (Clinical Knowledge) scores were 239.6 [±10.4] and 249.2 [±11.4], respectively. The mean (SD) LOR and RS scores were 4.24 [±0.4] and 3.9 [±0.7], respectively. A positive correlation was observed between USMLE Step 1 and USMLE Step 2 C K (Clinical Knowledge) scores (r = 0.60, p < .001), LOR scores (r = 0.24, p = .008), and AOA status (r = 0.19, p = .038). There was a negligible correlation between USMLE scores and applicant gender. ConclusionTransitioning USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail will make the initial screening and selection process of applications challenging for residency programs. In the short term, USMLE Step 2 scores, LOR, and AOA status are important as screening assessments. Valid measures to ensure appropriate, equitable, and fair assessments are needed.

Direct-to-Consumer Low-Testosterone Clinics—Where Is the Federation of State Medical Boards?

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA Internal Medicine HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcast Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA Internal Medicine journal

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health: An Historical Perspective on Medical Boards, Disciplinary Actions, and Abortion

<i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health:</i> An Historical Perspective on Medical Boards, Disciplinary Actions, and Abortion

Assessment Briefs

Assessment Briefs

Medical board transparency regarding physician sexual misconduct: Two years post-policy updates.

Recent years have seen increased attention to and motivation for addressing sexual violence. Physician sexual misconduct (PSM) represents a significant violation and abuse of power, with consequences for both patients and public trust in medicine. In the United States, the Federation of State Medical Boards released updated policies in 2020 imploring increased transparency and stronger punishments for PSM cases. This brief report presents an assessment of how transparent medical board websites are in disclosing PSM now 2 years after this policy paper. We reviewed the websites for all 50 states and Washington, DC, to examine how easily a consumer could find a list of board orders, profiles of licensees, and PSM case summaries. In total, 24 states provided a list of orders, and 21 states provided case summaries. Many barriers to finding clearly discussed PSM-related information remain, including many outdated licensee profiles. Ideas for continued efforts to document and discuss PSM to help foster evidence-based policy recommendations are presented.

Understanding Gender Biases and Differences in Web-Based Reviews of Sanctioned Physicians Through a Machine Learning Approach: Mixed Methods Study

BackgroundPrevious studies have highlighted gender differences in web-based physician reviews; however, so far, no study has linked web-based ratings with quality of care.ObjectiveWe compared a consumer-generated measure of physician quality (web-based ratings) with a clinical quality outcome (sanctions for malpractice or improper behavior) to understand how patients’ perceptions and evaluations of physicians differ based on the physician’s gender.MethodsWe used data from a large web-based physician review website and the Federation of State Medical Boards. We implemented paragraph vector methods to identify words that are specific to and indicative of separate groups of physicians. Then, we enriched these findings by using the National Research Council Canada word-emotion association lexicon to assign emotional scores to reviews for different subpopulations according to gender, gender and sanction, and gender and rating.ResultsWe found statistically significant differences in the sentiment and emotion of reviews between male and female physicians. Numerical ratings are lower and sentiment in text reviews is more negative for women who will be sanctioned than for men who will be sanctioned; sanctioned male physicians are still associated with positive reviews.ConclusionsGiven the growing impact of web-based reviews on demand for physician services, understanding the different dynamics of reviews for male and female physicians is important for consumers and platform architects who may revisit their platform design.

Comparison of State Board Disciplinary Actions in Board-Certified Versus Non-Board-Certified Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Physicians.

Our goals were to estimate how many physicians who were enrolled in a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency program are licensed to practice medicine without American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation board certification and to compare risk of state medical board disciplinary action with those who are board certified. We matched physicians who completed training in physical medicine and rehabilitation before 2019 with the Federation of State Medical Boards database. We compared certified versus noncertified physicians registered with Federation of State Medical Boards and frequencies of disciplinary action. There were 14,729 physicians with matched American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Federation of State Medical Boards data. Of these, 13,707 (93.1%) had attained initial American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation certification and 1022 (6.9%) had not. Certification status predicted a disciplinary action (odds ratio = 2.76; 95% confidence interval = 2.202-3.463; P < 0.001). Compared with the board-certified physicians, those who never passed part I (attempted once or more) were 4.68 times more likely to have a disciplinary action (P < 0.001), and those who passed part I with multiple attempts but failed part II (1 or more times) were 3.26 times more likely to have a disciplinary action (P = 0.013). Absence of American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation certification is noted in approximately 7% of physicians who undertook physical medicine and rehabilitation residency training and obtained medical licensure. These individuals are at higher risk for state medical board disciplinary action.

Who to Believe? Consequences for Physicians and Nurses Who Spread Misinformation

Who to Believe? Consequences for Physicians and Nurses Who Spread Misinformation

Cross-State Licensure Laws for Telehealth Evolve During Pandemic

Cross-State Licensure Laws for Telehealth Evolve During Pandemic

ASA Promotes Patient Safety at 2021 NCSL Legislative Summit

State Beat| February 2022 ASA Promotes Patient Safety at 2021 NCSL Legislative Summit Jason Hansen, MS, JD Jason Hansen, MS, JD Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar ASA Monitor February 2022, Vol. 86, 29. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASM.0000820420.71787.6b Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share MailTo Twitter LinkedIn Cite Icon Cite Get Permissions Search Site Citation Jason Hansen; ASA Promotes Patient Safety at 2021 NCSL Legislative Summit. ASA Monitor 2022; 86:29 doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASM.0000820420.71787.6b Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll PublicationsASA Monitor Search Advanced Search In early November 2021, ASA State Affairs represented the society at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) 46th annual Legislative Summit in Tampa, Florida. For more than 15 years, ASA has participated as an exhibitor at this important gathering of state lawmakers. Jay Epstein, MD, FASA, Chair of the ASA Task Force on State Advocacy, joined State Affairs staff in interacting with state legislators and legislative staff at the exhibit booth. ASA represented physician anesthesiologists as part of a larger joint physician booth called “Physicians Advocating for Patients.” This booth included representatives of the American Academy of Anesthesiologist Assistants, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Surgeons, and the Federation of State Medical Boards. NCSL has become one of the largest bipartisan organizations of state lawmakers in the country. It serves state lawmakers and legislative staff throughout the U.S. with policy research and... You do not currently have access to this content.

The US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Scoring Change: A Survey of Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants From the 2019 to 2020 Match Cycle.

The USMLE Step 1 examination has been used as an objective measure for comparing residency applicants. Recently, the National Board of Medical Examiners and the Federation of State Medical Boards decided that the USMLE Step 1 examination will transition to a pass/fail result starting no earlier than 2022. The purpose of this study was to investigate the perspective of medical students who applied for orthopaedic surgery residency positions during the 2019 to 2020 interview cycle on the USMLE scoring change, and the potential effect this change may result in for future applicants and the residency selection process. A 15-item anonymous web-based survey was sent to 1,090 orthopaedic surgery residency applicants from four regionally diverse residency programs. The survey elicited attitudes toward the transition of the Step 1 examination to pass/fail and perspectives this change may or may not have on the residency selection process. Responses were received from 356 applicants (32.7%). The majority (61.6%) disagreed with the change to pass/fail scoring, and 68.5% do not believe that the change will decrease stress levels in medical students. For interview invitations, respondents chose Step 2 clinical knowledge, letters of recommendation, and performance on away rotations as the most influential factors in the absence of a Step 1 score. Most of the students surveyed who applied for an orthopaedic surgery residency position during the most recent application cycle disagreed with the National Board of Medical Examiner/Federation of State Medical Board decision to change Step 1 to pass/fail and feel that this change may have disadvantage in certain student groups while either increasing or having no effect on medical student stress. IV.

Honoring the public trust: curbing the bane of physician sexual misconduct

The Federation of State Medical Boards defines physician sexual misconduct as any ‘behavior that exploits the physician-patient relationship in a sexual way.’ Although several attempts have been made in recent years to clarify its incidence in the United States, physician sexual misconduct is almost certainly underreported. Physician sexual misconduct represents a severe and irreversible violation of the compact underlying the patient–physician relationship and can have far-reaching consequences on the lives of patients and their families. In addition, the credibility of and trust in physicians, both essential to the provision of medical care, could well erode in the eyes of the public at large if egregious cases of physician sexual misconduct are perceived as having gone unpunished. Although all physician licensees accused of sexual misconduct are entitled to the presumption of innocence and due process, complaints made by patients must be taken seriously and vigorously pursued. In this article, we discuss the ongoing challenge of physician sexual misconduct and provide recommendations to improve its reporting and curb its incidence.

Protecting the Public’s Health-Except in Tennessee

No abstract available. Article truncated after 150 words. State regulatory boards that regulate professionals such as doctors, nurses, psychologists, etc. are often appointed by politicians and headed by lawyers. Under this category has been most Medical Boards and their parent organization the Federation of State Medical Boards. Although they claim to be protecting the public, they seem more concerned with identifying “disruptive” physicians and blacklisting them through the National Practitioner Data Bank (1). However, in July the Federation issued a warning to physicians against propagating COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation citing a "dramatic increase" by physicians (2). The statement gave some hope that the Federation was striving to maintain some degree of professional standards by saying that spreading disinformation to the public was dangerous because physicians enjoy a high degree of public credibility. The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners followed the Federation’s lead by issuing a verbatim restatement warning that physicians who spread false information about COVID-19 vaccinations …

How Diverse are State Medical Boards?

How Diverse are State Medical Boards?

Expecting the Unexpected: How Regulators Can Prepare for Serious Events

Expecting the Unexpected: How Regulators Can Prepare for Serious Events

FSMB Census of Licensed Physicians in the United States, 2020

ABSTRACT There are 1,018,776 licensed physicians in the United States and the District of Columbia, representing a physician workforce that is 20% larger than it was a decade ago, according to data from 2020 compiled by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB). The licensed physician population has grown in number relative to the total population, but concerns about a doctor shortage remain as both the general and physician populations age. Late career physicians generally work fewer hours and retire at higher rates, while younger physicians place more emphasis on work-life balance that may also limit work hours, even as many older physicians have delayed retirement in recent years. The mean age of licensed physicians is now 51.7 years, a year higher than it was in 2010. The physician workforce is increasingly mixed in gender and type of physician, with more women and more individuals with Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) degrees, specialty board certification and international medical degrees than a decade ago. The ability to inventory a nation’s health care workforce across all specialties and jurisdictions is essential to the delivery of quality health care where it is needed most. This paper marks the FSMB’s sixth biennial census of licensed physicians in the United States and the District of Columbia and provides valuable information about the nation’s available physician workforce, including information about medical degree type, location of undergraduate medical education, specialty certification, number of active licenses, age and sex. As the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States is not yet fully known, this report should help state medical boards as they consider changes to their statutes and regulations to facilitate telemedicine and licensure portability after the pandemic ends and before another national public health emergency.

Multiple United States Medical Licensing Examination Attempts and the Estimated Risk of Disciplinary Actions Among Graduates of U.S. and Canadian Medical Schools.

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) recently announced 2 policy changes: shifting from numeric score reporting on the Step 1 examination to pass/fail reporting and limiting examinees to 4 attempts for each Step component. In light of these policies, exam measures other than scores, such as the number of examination attempts, are of interest. Attempt limit policies are intended to ensure minimum standards of physician competency, yet little research has explored how Step attempts relate to physician practice outcomes. This study examined the relationship between USMLE attempts and the likelihood of receiving disciplinary actions from state medical boards. The sample population was 219,018 graduates from U.S. and Canadian MD-granting medical schools who passed all USMLE Step examinations by 2011 and obtained a medical license in the United States, using data from the NBME and the Federation of State Medical Boards. Logistic regressions estimated how attempts on Steps 1, 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK), and 3 examinations influenced the likelihood of receiving disciplinary actions by 2018, while accounting for physician characteristics. A total of 3,399 physicians (2%) received at least 1 disciplinary action. Additional attempts needed to pass Steps 1, 2 CK, and 3 were associated with an increased likelihood of receiving disciplinary actions (odds ratio [OR]: 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01, 1.13; OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.16; OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.17, respectively), after accounting for other factors. Physicians who took multiple attempts to pass Steps 1, 2 CK, and 3 were associated with higher estimated likelihood of receiving disciplinary actions. This study offers support for licensure and practice standards to account for physicians' USMLE attempts. The relatively small effect sizes, however, caution policy makers from placing sole emphasis on this relationship.

In Case You Haven't Heard

Leading advocates and researchers in the mental health field published new data in JAMA showing that state medical board license applications do not follow national recommendations to protect the mental health of physicians, The Emotional PPE Project reported May 18. Physicians have high rates of burnout and consistently report they do not have adequate support for their emotional wellness. Despite this context, physicians infrequently seek mental health care, often fearing that it will result in loss of their medical license. In 2018, the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) published recommendations to limit medical license application questions regarding mental health to only what is necessary and relevant, and to provide language supportive of mental health treatment seeking. The findings in JAMA show that as of July 2020, these recommendations have not been widely adopted. Only 1 of 54 US state and territory medical licensing applications evaluated in the study fully adopted the FSMB recommendations (North Carolina), and five states were not consistent with any of the recommendations. This latest paper is one in a series of publications over the past year that have brought awareness to the multitude of barriers that physicians face when seeking mental health care. Advocacy organizations such as The Emotional PPE Project and the National Alliance on Mental Illness have emerged as some of the leaders in the effort to lift these barriers.