Cardiology Policy

ABMS Rejects Independent CV Board, Doesn’t Explain Why

In a move that could mark a serious setback for independent cardiology certification, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) denied the joint ACC/AHA/HRS/SCAI/HFSA request to launch a new American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine.

  • Cardiologists currently receive board certification through the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), but many feel the process wastes their time and money with few benefits.
  • However, as cardiology becomes increasingly more complex and specialized, the argument is growing beyond convenience and now focuses on advancements that have made cardiology independent from internal medicine. 

Pushing for independence since 2023, the new American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine would have been completely independent of the ABIM and focused solely on the certification processes for U.S. cardiologists and other CV specialists.

  • Instead of granting ABCVM’s wish, ABMS openly rejected it, with no commentary or reasoning as to why.

One potential answer why? CV certification is a cash cow for ABIM when you look at the first time licensing fees and all of the annual maintenance charges that follow:

  • As it stands, cardiologists are forced to fork over $1,400 for the Internal Medicine Certification Exam and then between $2,300 -$3,000 for CV subspecialization.
  • To maintain board certification, cardiologists then pay $220 per year for the first certificate and $120 per year for each additional certificate they’ve earned.
  • And finally, ABIM collects $700 in exam fees for the traditional 10-Year MOC Exam

From a financial angle, it makes sense that ABIM will hold onto the cardiology board certification mantle as long as it can, but as the specialty becomes increasingly diverse and subspecialized, that’ll be harder to justify.

  • When ABIM started offering cardiology boards in 1941, electrophysiology, TAVR, and many other complex procedures didn’t exist.

The Takeaway

ABMS’ decision is certainly frustrating for those who support an independent cardiology board, and while the major societies are united on the issue, it’s clear they’ll need more than a strongly worded letter to get their way.

Get twice-weekly insights on the biggest stories shaping cardiology.

You might also like

Surgeries & Interventions December 11, 2025

CAD and Treating it With PCI has No Impact on TAVR December 11, 2025

New post-hoc results from SCOPE I suggest that patients who have obstructive coronary artery disease as well as symptomatic severe aortic stenosis have similar outcomes to patients without CAD three years after TAVR. The study also suggests performing PCI in parallel to TAVR provides no benefit to these patients. But does the presence of CAD […]

Cardiac Imaging May 4, 2000

CathWorks FFRangio Goes Beyond Physiology May 4, 2000

Despite society guidelines and extensive clinical evidence demonstrating that traditional wire-based coronary physiology improves outcomes and reduces costs compared to angiography alone1-2, physiology continues to be disappointingly underutilized globally due to the inconvenience and time it adds to the procedure. The novel CathWorks FFRangio System combines artificial intelligence and advanced computational science to obtain physiologic […]

Obesity Care December 8, 2025

Childhood Obesity CHD Risks Might Be Reversible December 8, 2025

Childhood obesity’s cardiovascular consequences might be reversible with timely intervention, after a Swedish study demonstrated that children who were overweight but achieved normal weight by young adulthood had similar coronary heart disease risk to their “never-overweight” peers. The BMI Epidemiology Study analysis linked health records to nationwide registries for 103k people in Sweden to track […]