Just to provide a different perspective than PADPM's experience, no hospital I have been on staff requires ABPS. I am ABPM and I have full, unrestricted surgical privileges for the scope of podiatry because they care mostly that 1. you are BQ or BC by a board recognized by CPME and the government (ABPM or ABPS), and 2. you show cases (or are willing to) that verify your experience for requested privileges.
Obviously our experiences differ. No hospital where I have or have had privileges recognizes any board other than the ABPS or the orthopedic/primary podiatric medicine board (I apologize, I never get the initials correct). Docs who are not ABPS qualified or certified will have a hard time in these facilities obtaining surgical privileges and/or have restricted privileges.
I have NO doubt that Dr. Rogers would have NO difficulty passing the ABPS exam. I may be incorrect, but if my memory is correct, Dr. Rogers had philosophical differences with the ABPS and that's why he didn't pursue certification with the ABPS, not due to inability to pass the exam. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
As I've stated too many times, I was an examiner for the oral portion of the ABPS cert exam for many years. I also had philosophical differences with them and subsequently discontinued as an examiner.
Many have described the ABPS as a good ole boys club, and I've been guilty of the same. But I believe that is changing for the better. I have always had a hard time accepting that today's better trained pods have to take a REAL re-cert exam every ten years (to assure quality to the public), but those who created the rules only have to take a self assessment exam. Since most of those docs had training quite some time ago (including me), it would seem intuitive that THEY should be the docs under scrutiny to REALLY "protect the public".
I had this conversation a few times with Podfather who used to be an extremely valuable contributor to this site, and whom I respect immensely. He had excellent points regarding grandfathering and the impracticality of going back amd changing rules. etc.
I fully understand and respect his view, though we will agree to disagree. In my opinion, you need one set of rules to truly assure competency (at least competency to pass an exam) and to allow institutions to actually understand the ABPS, without the confusion of different requirements.
However, though I have had philosophical differences with the ABPS, I continue to pay my dues and maintain my certification, because I honestly believe it is the gold standard in podiatric surgery, and it's members are responsible for the most research and advances. Once again, that's my opinion and there will always be exceptions such as Dr. Rogers who is well published. But I'm talking about the rule, not the exception.
And of course you must consider WHY these other boards were really created in the first place. Why re-create the wheel. If you want changes, pass the exam and make changes from within for the benefit of all. Starting new boards serves no real purpose other than financial and to further splinter an already small profession.
By the way, I did some of my training in Pennsylvania. Apparently the board of medical/podiatry examiners in Pennsylvainia felt so strongly about these boards and possible misleading of the public, they created a rule. If a doctor advertised he was board certified by one of these newer boards, they had to have a disclaimer in the ad stating that the board was not recognized by the APMA! Not sure if this rule still exists in Pennsylvania, but I know it did for many years, and probably still does.
I personally know of zero podiatric surgical residencies that are overseen by any surgical board other than the ABPS. If there are I stand corrected.