Hematology Board Meeting Summary | Spring 2025
The Hematology Board, which meets twice a year and is responsible for oversight of ABIM policy and assessment in the specialty, held its spring meeting on May 2, 2025. A representative from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) joined for a portion of the meeting*.
The following is a summary of the spring meeting. Visit the ABIM Blog for reports of prior meetings. To share your feedback with the Hematology Board on this report or other issues that are important to you, please complete this brief survey.
Contents:
- ABIM Leadership Update*
- Specialty Board Oversight of Assessment*
- Initial Certification and Training Data in Hematology*
- Diplomate Professional Profile*
- Community Practice in ABIM Governance*
- Supporting Research and Important Issues in Hematology*
- Advanced Practice Providers in the Hematology-Oncology Workforce*
- Update from ASH*
- Innovations in Assessment*
- Annual Diplomate Report*
- Updates from the Hematology Approval Committees
ABIM Leadership Update*
Furman S. McDonald, MD, MPH, President and Chief Executive Officer of ABIM and the ABIM Foundation, joined the Specialty Board to share progress on key initiatives and ongoing areas of focus for ABIM, including:
- Exploring the alignment of Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirement due dates with the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA®) cycle to help make the MOC program more reliably predictable.
- Enhancements made to the LKA in response to feedback from physicians who identified areas for improvement, which are intended to keep the program relevant and effective.
- Expanding ABIM’s engagement with stakeholder communities such as early career physicians, specialty societies and patient-focused organizations.
- Upgrades to the ABIM website and Physician Portal for 2025, designed to make it easier for both physicians and the public to find information.
The group discussed policy shifts and potential implications for graduate medical education and health equity. Dr. McDonald acknowledged that recent executive orders have emphasized more competition in medical and legal education accreditation, but reaffirmed ABIM’s commitment to evidence-based practice and health equity. Above all, ABIM remains focused on its mission.
Dr. McDonald also spoke more about ABIM’s fee structure in response to questions from the Specialty Board about future plans for fees and further program enhancements. ABIM’s per-certificate fee structure has remained unchanged for five years and there are no plans to increase fees in the near future. He noted that ABIM aims to keep costs low for physicians while also evolving the program to better serve physicians’ needs and ensure it remains valuable and relevant. To that end, ABIM continues to work with diverse stakeholder groups, including early career physicians, to identify areas for improvement.
Specialty Board Oversight of Assessment*
Each spring, the ABIM Specialty Boards review data related to certification and assessment trends in their disciplines to help guide their decisions on assessments. At this meeting, the Hematology Board received statistics on the current state of active certification in hematology, assessment enrollment, demographics and pass rates, and data from post-assessment surveys. (Some data, such as exam pass rates and resident and fellow workforce trends, are publicly available on ABIM’s website.) Of note, 14,777 physicians have been ABIM Board Certified in Hematology since it was first offered in 1972, with 10,730 currently maintaining valid certification and 7,445 simultaneously maintaining certification in internal medicine. Many hematologists maintain multiple certifications, the most common combination being hematology-medical oncology (9,280) and hematology-hospice and palliative medicine (176).
In 2024, 78% of hematologists who were due for an assessment and chose to enroll in one chose the LKA over the traditional, 10-year MOC exam, which is on par with the average across specialties.
The group discussed post-assessment survey results more closely, particularly how to analyze results, with some suggesting that artificial intelligence (AI) could be a useful tool in analyzing free text field comments and exploring the relevance of questions to daily practice, in addition to human analysis.
Initial Certification and Training Data in Hematology*
The Hematology Board also reviewed new data from the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP), Board Eligibility data, outcomes for candidates requiring retraining, faculty pathway pass rates and approved Advancing Innovation in Residency Education (AIRE) programs in hematology. There is currently one AIRE program sponsored by ASCO with 15 participants at six institutions. If successful, the participants will be Board Eligible for subspecialty certification after two years of fellowship in medical oncology and hospice and palliative medicine, or three years of fellowship in hematology, oncology and hospice. Outcomes are pending but the sponsors will report on the program as fellows begin to graduate, and track practice data as well. Ultimately, the AIRE program’s success rate will help determine whether it becomes an accredited training pathway through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).
Diplomate Professional Profile*
The Diplomate Professional Profile is a questionnaire built into the ABIM Physician Portal and required of all ABIM Board Certified physicians every five years. The questionnaire gathers information about clinical work and practice patterns, and ABIM uses the information to help update exam blueprints, develop policies for initial certification and MOC, and ensure adequately diverse representation of the profession in research. To date, 44% of physicians have completed the Diplomate Professional Profile, with a corresponding rate in hematology. Siddharta G. Reddy, MPH, Senior Research Associate for ABIM, reviewed some of the aggregate data gathered so far related to hematologists, including practice setting, practice size and physician ownership of practices.
Preliminary data show that 90% of respondents are clinically active with the majority in hospital- or system-owned practice (38%), academic faculty practice (32.9%) and private practice (26.8%). Most (49.5%) are in single-specialty group practice or multi-specialty group practice (38%).
Community Practice in ABIM Governance*
Erica N. Johnson, MD, FACP, FIDSA, Senior Vice President for Academic and Medical Affairs, led a discussion with the Hematology Board on community practice in the specialty to create a more inclusive understanding of its role and scope. She also sought input on overlapping aspects of community practice across the disciplines of internal medicine to inform ABIM’s recruitment efforts for broad physician representation in governance roles.
Since 2013, ABIM Specialty Boards have been required to include at least one physician member primarily engaged in community practice, defined broadly in applications as “clinical practice in a non-university, community setting.” A workgroup convened in 2020 found that the existing practice categories candidates could choose were inadequate to the real scope of community practice and proposed updates drawn from the American Medical Association and the Diplomate Professional Profile.
Several members of the Hematology Board raised important points to consider when defining community practice, such as access to transfusion and investigational therapies, regional referral dynamics and differences in availability of services such as stem cell transplantation. The group also discussed how many hematologists may align their practice more closely with oncology, affecting their participation in surveys and applications that call for hematologists.
Supporting Research and Important Issues in Hematology*
Dr. Johnson led the Hematology Board in a discussion about opportunities for ABIM Governance members to support important issues and research that demonstrates the value of board certification. Dr. Johnson asked the Specialty Board to identify current or emerging issues that affect health care in hematology, and to consider opportunities for the Specialty Board to address these issues within the appropriate framework of its oversight of the discipline.
Topics that came up in discussion included concerns around limited clinical trial access for patients in underserved populations, escalating costs and insurance challenges, such as shifting coverage policies. Nathalie van Havre, MD, MSc, FRACP, Chief Professional Development and Diversity Officer for ASH, also spoke about ASH’s advocacy work related to sickle cell disease and Medicaid. ASH has engaged in lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C. and is working on shaping federal priorities for hematologic research.
Advanced Practice Providers in the Hematology-Oncology Workforce*
Guinevere Z. Lillie, MSN, FNP-C, AOCNP, a public member of the Hematology Board and advanced practice provider (APP) at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute, led a discussion about the integration of APPs in hematology and differences among clinical practices. While some specialty societies for other credentialed healthcare providers offer their own board certification exam in a given specialty, physician assistants and nurse practitioners do not always have a robust assessment equivalent to the one that board certified physicians take.
Dr. van Havre spoke about ASH’s efforts to map educational materials to topics in the hematology taxonomy and assign competency levels to each one. The goal is to make it easier for providers to find educational materials that align with their practice. ASH also now allows advanced practitioners to become active members, including the ability to qualify for committee and leadership roles.
The group’s discussion centered on the roles that APPs play in individual members’ practices, the variety of practice structures and differences in how advanced practitioners are supervised or operate independently. There was agreement on a broad need for safe, structured, team-based care.
Update from ASH*
Dr. van Havre reported that ASH is exploring AI-driven personalized education plans based on learning gaps, aligning with the Specialty Knowledge Gaps Reports that ABIM issues annually. ASH is also making changes to its self-assessment program, moving it to an online format with more frequent (now annual) updates. Based on a request from its Board of Directors, ASH has developed a package to support current and future hematologists for research and mentoring, representing a significant investment for the society. ASH has broadened the criteria for bridge grant applicants, removing limits on some resources and the institutional match, and expanding awards or creating new awards. This has resulted in more than 100 applications—four times the normal number—for research funding, underscoring the need for the new package that ASH’s Board of Directors is reviewing. ASH has also launched a micro-education platform on social media which has proven to be popular with its members.
Innovations in Assessment*
ABIM’s Research and Innovations Department has been leading a program of research on improving assessments through three main areas: supporting the efficiency of assessment staff, facilitating the item development process and enhancing the assessment experience for physicians. The Hematology Board received an overview of the team’s current projects.
Dr. Gertz and other members of the Specialty Board brought up the use of AI to review and revise assessment questions (items). ABIM staff clarified that any use of AI models needs to rely on secure paid models that ensure the security of ABIM Data. The group briefly discussed how some institutions are using AI to draft clinical notes in Epic, and the variations in output based on different AI models.
Annual Diplomate Report*
ABIM is looking into the potential for publishing annual reports of data that will highlight broad statistics across each discipline of internal medicine, both for a given year and historic trends over time. This would include the current number of physicians certified in each discipline and its geographic distribution, participation rates in MOC, demographic characteristics and assessment performance. While some of these data have been made available on request for research purposes, ABIM has never published a consolidated annual report. The group briefly discussed current data on the number of ABIM Board Certified physicians who are maintaining certification, and how that compares to licensure requirements in different states. ABIM draws data from Medicare and other sources in an attempt to reflect the most accurate picture possible of how many physicians are certified and practicing. The Specialty Board did not offer suggestions on how to change the report, but Dr. Gertz noted the relatively low number of women in hematology and the growth of osteopathic-trained physicians in the specialty. Staff pointed out that there is potential that the report will inspire research into workforce issues by presenting data in a clear way that highlights disparities and trends over time.
Society representatives departed at this point in the meeting.
Updates from the Hematology Approval Committees
Robert T. Means, Jr., MD, Chair of the Hematology Traditional, 10-Year MOC Exam Approval Committee, and Ming Lim, MD, Chair of the Hematology LKA Approval Committee, reviewed recent meetings and the member composition of the Approval Committees, rates at which items are approved for use on assessments and goals for item development with the Item-Writing Task Force. Of note, they reported that the committees and the task force are ahead of schedule for developing new items to feature on the focused versions of the Hematology LKA launching in 2026.
Learn More
Subscribe to the ABIM Blog to stay on top of the latest news.
Get Involved
Apply to openings on ABIM Governance and the Item-Writing Task Forces and be part of shaping the future of ABIM’s assessments.
Join the Community Insights Network to share feedback with ABIM through focus groups, surveys, user testing and more as we develop and refine our programs together.
Get in Touch
ABIM and the Hematology Board value your feedback. Complete this survey to share your thoughts on this report and other topics important to you.
*Indicates that society guests and other representatives were present for discussion of this agenda topic.
