I totally agree with Dr Bilazarian comments. I have 5 boards to recertify every 10 yrs, Cardiology, Echo, Nuclear, Pacer and CT. It is huge cost with no return. Especially because it does not identify your weakness. That should be the essence of recertification. Whatever i answered wrong, i have no idea of how to correct it because i dont remember all the questions to go back and try to find the answers. We should not be under ABIM but have separate boards like Neurolgy or Dermatology. We should have different modules that include various imaging and interventional parts and be able to certify under one organization instead of multiple various entities. I think the present system helps the various academics prolong their career in their fields by conducting review courses and being involved in exams.

Board Certification and board-Re-certification, atleast for the Internists, are OVER-SOLD .

Tthis is a prolonged, painful & very exprensive process. The process is self-serving for the ABIM and NOTHING MORE THAN THAT !

I believe attending the annual ACP conference & the State chapter of ACP annual conference is much more educational than the whole process of re-certification thro' ABIM. 

Even worse, the Board seems to be sadistic towards the internists, having them jump thro' so many hoops, to complete the process !

A sensible way to keep certification would be to have bi-annual on-line refreshers & on-line testing for a fee of $ 200-300 every 2 yrs. -- the applicants should be able to take the tests again and again till achieving 80% score.--  there should be feed-back on wrong answers & explanation for correct answers.

  ---  But who said anything about the ABIM being sensible ?

-- Dampening the enthusiasm of internists desiring re-certification- ABIM it is !!!

The board certification and testing process has become a huge commercial entity and has many onerous features but it does help ensure a threshold of minimal knowlege and cognitive skills of those making life and death decisions on their patients. 

 I have been in a very busy practice for nearly 30 years and have endured the pain of board certification in internal medicine, cardiology, interventional cardiology, nuclear cardiology, echocardiography, and cardiac CTA and recertified in 3 of those last year.  Although the tests were not particularly informative (nor are they intended to be), they did serve as a  "gun pointed at my head" that forced me to intensively study the various areas with much greater intensity than I would have otherwise.  They serve to improve my knowlege base which helps me provide better care for my patients.

There is also the Dunning-Kruger Effect to consider.  Their research indicates that the  skills and knowlege that are required for competency are the same as those required to recognize competency and that the least competent feel that they are the most competent.  (This has certainly been true from my observations.) The boards, although flawed,  give a more objective assessment than our own opinion of our knowlege.  

The various board exams offer a means to ensure physicians have a minimal level of knowlege, dedication (in that it takes great dedication to spend our scarce time to intensively study and review), and cognitive function.   It forces the old folks (like me)  to keep up to date (as well as providing mental exercise).  In this way, in my opinion, they help  improve patient care and safety.