New Cardiology Board Shot Down by ABMS

Hopes for a separate board responsible for certifying cardiologists were dashed Friday when leaders laying the groundwork for a new American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine (ABCVM) announced that their application was denied.

ABCVM Chair Jeffrey Kuvin, MD (Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY), a member of the American College of Cardiology (ACC)’s board of trustees, said in a statement that “we are deeply disappointed” with the decision from the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). The rejection “ignores the evolution of cardiovascular medicine into its own distinct medical specialty, separate from the field of internal medicine, requiring its own set of knowledge, skills, and competencies to sustain professional excellence and effectively care for cardiovascular patients,” he said.

Moreover, said Kuvin, “the decision does not acknowledge fundamental change in how clinicians learn information and demonstrate skills throughout their careers.”

The idea for an independent certification body for cardiologists emerged amid long-simmering frustration and discontent with the way the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM)—the largest of the 24 member boards of the ABMS—handles its maintenance of certification process, which critics say wastes time and money and doesn’t offer any tangible benefits.

The effort to abandon ABIM and create the ABCVM was first announced back in September 2023, with the ACC, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) joining forces; the American Heart Association joined the others a month later.

‘The Fight Has Not Ended’

“We feel strongly that the ABCVM met all the criteria required for a new board, including aligning with the rigorous, recently updated ABMS ‘Standards for Continuing Certification,’ which promote integrated, specialty-specific programs that further a diplomate’s continuous professional development and emphasize improvements in healthcare quality, safety, value, and competency, rather than a focus on punitive examinations,” Kuvin said in his statement. “In addition, the ABCVM application met the expected financial metrics for establishing a new, independent board with tremendous professional support within the ‘House of Cardiology,’ and beyond.”

The ABCVM board of directors is evaluating next steps. “In the meantime, we expect that ABMS will listen to the feedback and comments from the cardiovascular community,” said Kuvin.

SCAI expressed its disappointment as well. “ABMS had an opportunity to support a forward-thinking, evidence-based certification model that aligns with how cardiovascular specialists train, practice, and maintain their skills today. Instead, they have chosen to uphold an outdated system that does not reflect the realities of our profession or the needs of our patients,” SCAI President James Hermiller, MD (Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, IN), said in a statement, adding, however, that “the fight has not ended.”

To TCTMD, a representative for ABMS said the group “does not comment on the specifics of individual applications. The ABMS policy that governs membership applications is the Policy on Admission of New Medical Specialty Boards to Membership in ABMS, which is available publicly.”