Letter From Frank J Veith, MD to Frank R Lewis, MDFrom: Frank J. Veith, MD American Board of Vascular Surgery July 7, 2004 Frank R. Lewis, Jr., MD Dear Frank (Lewis): The American Board of Vascular Surgery (ABVS) was disappointed with the negative response of the American Board of Surgery (ABS) (as expressed in your letter of June 17, 2004) to our request that the ABS reconsider supporting our application to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ARMS) for an approved independent Board of Vascular Surgery. Our disappointment stems not only from the uncompromisingly negative ABS response to the ABVS but also from some of the erroneous statements made in your letter and your flagrant misrepresentation of the positions taken by the Directors of the ABVS. Our concern is that the negative response of the ABS Directors may have been based on the incorrect information contained in your June 17, 2004 letter (copy attached). In this letter I hope to correct the erroneous statements in your letter, and I would ask that you readdress the issue of ABS Directors' support of the ABVS application, after this communication has been shared with them. It is blatantly unfair to ask their opinion on the ABVS if they have been misinformed. First, you are incorrect that "there is currently no proposal before the ABMS for an independent vascular surgery board..." Our application for such a Board was submitted to the ABMS in May 2002. It was denied by the Liaison Committee for Medical Specialties (LCSB) in December 2002. An appeal of that decision was requested as is our right under ABMS rules. In a letter (copy attached) dated May 14, 2004, Dr. Stephen Miller, executive vice president of the ABMS, indicated that an Appeals Panel will be reactivated and provided with the appropriate supporting materials, and that we would be informed "as soon as possible" with the date of that Appeals Panel. Since you are a member of the Executive Committee of the ABMS, it is surprising that you were unaware of the status of the ABVS application to the ARMS and the fact that the LCSB denial of that application is being appealed. Second, you stated in your June 17, 2004 letter that "we would welcome the support of the ABVS toward [the] effort [for the primary certificate in vascular surgery] which has so far been withheld". That statement is incorrect. At the June 2004 meeting of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), I gave reports to the Board of Directors of the SVS and to its full membership on the activities of the ABVS. These reports (copies attached) were presented in writing to the Board of Directors on June 4, 2004 and should appear in the minutes of this Board Meeting and be reflected in the minutes of the Business Meeting held on June 8, 2004. The first paragraph of these reports stated clearly that the ABVS Board of Directors "expressed its unanimous support of the SVS/ABS initiative for a Primary Certificate in Vascular Surgery". These reports indicated that "most ABVS Directors believe that this Primary Certificate should be viewed as a way station to an independent Board" since the Primary Certificate "provides clear support that Vacular Surgery is a separate distinct specialty that warrants an independent Board". It is quite shocking that none of your ABS Director colleagues who are vascular surgeons or your colleagues on the Vascular Surgery Board (VSB) of the ABS, all of whom heard one or both of these reports, did not inform you of the clear statements in these reports. You should also be aware that the VSB is not perceived by very many practicing vascular surgeons to represent the interests of their discipline or their patients. Many VSB members, although holding Certificates of Added Qualifications in Vascular Surgery and even holding office in vascular organizations, have prominent positions nationally in General Surgery organizations or in their own institutions as Department Chair. On this basis we believe that the ABS' position that the VSB speaks for or represents Vascular Surgery is wrong. Rather they represent a carefully selected oligarchy of "General Surgery oriented vascular surgeons who will support the needs and interests of the ABS and General Surgery. This is often not in the interest of good patient care as has been amply demonstrated by numerous peer-reviewed articles and in the lay press (see attached Wall Street Journal article). Finally, the impression in your letter of June 17, 2004 that the SVS and the Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery (APDVS) support the Primary Certificate in Vascular Surgery to the exclusion of an independent ABVS is misleading. As I indicated to you in my letter of April 27 and June 7, 2004 (copies enclosed), the APDVS membership by a vote of 66 to 7 and the SVS Board of Directors by a margin of 16 to 6 voted in April 2004 to support the pursuit of an independent ABVS. It is likely that the vast majority of your vascular surgeons currently also support an independent ABVS as they consistently have in the past. We ask you to share this letter and the supporting documents with all the ABS Directors and all members of the VSB. It is our hope that by being acquainted with these corrected facts, many of them will be willing to reconsider their opposition to the ABVS. After all, we are all striving for the same goal: better patient care through specialization. Vested interests and maintaining the status quo have no place in specialty training and certification paradigms. With best regards, Sincerely, cc: ABS Board of Directors |
|---|