Relationship Between Participation in ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Program and American Board of Internal Medicine's Maintenance of Certification Program.

PURPOSE: Medical oncologists have a variety of options for demonstrating proficiency in providing high-quality patient care. Perhaps, the best-known opportunity for demonstrating individual expertise and lifelong learning is the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) maintenance of certification (MOC) program. At the practice level, ASCO has offered the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) as a means of optimizing cancer care delivery. In this study, we assess the association between active involvement in MOC on an individual basis and whether that individual's practice is involved with the QOPI program.

METHODS: We evaluated 13,600 US medical oncologists initially certified by the ABIM and divided them into those initially certified before 1990 (the year in which ABIM started to require periodic recertification), those from 1990 to 2007, and those from 2008 to 2016. It was then determined which of these had let their certificates expire by 2020. These data were then compared with practices that participated in QOPI from 2017 to 2019, resulting in the matching of 97% of physicians.

RESULTS: Of individuals initially certified before 1990 (and technically with lifelong certification), 22% were in QOPI practices. Among those who did not have lifelong certification, there was an association between QOPI participation and maintenance of ABIM certification. For those initially certified between 1990 and 2007, 35% of oncologists with up-to-date ABIM certification were in QOPI practices, whereas only 11% with expired ABIM certification were QOPI participants ( P < .0001). For those in the 2008-2016 category, the numbers were 36% v 16%, respectively ( P < .0001).

CONCLUSION: Our analysis identifies a relationship between participation in these ABIM and ASCO proficiency programs. The reasons for this are likely complex and based on a variety of institutional, professional, monetary, and personal factors.