If you need help, we have a list of frequently asked questions and answers. We strive to give you the best experience possible. Click a question below to view the answer. Do you like to try your luck? Go to our website and play spielautomaten. Increased odds for winning!

Here is the official definition from the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM):
“Family Medicine is the medical specialty which is concerned with the total health care of the individual and the family. It is the specialty in breadth which integrates the biological, clinical, and behavioral sciences. The scope of family medicine is not limited by age, sex, organ system, or disease entity.”

[Excerpt from the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Web site]

The American Board of Family Practice* was born many years before it was officially recognized in February, 1969 as the 20th primary medical specialty.

The history of the Board is a fascinating saga of travails, with frustrations and impediments punctuating its formative days. Despite the fact that by the early 1960s the number of physicians in a general type of practice was dwindling rapidly, the medical establishment opposed the creating of a specialty that would fill this void. Therefore, the founding fathers of the Board deemed it necessary and rational, particularly in the face of this opposition, to document meticulously and persuasively the need for the specialty.

Various studies in the 1950s and 1960s concluded that “General Practice” was moribund. An analysis was made of specialty distribution of all graduates of every medical school by five-year periods since 1900 and from this data it was learned that the number of general practitioners was rapidly and steadily dwindling. In 1964, the percentage of graduates going into General Practice fell to 19%, down from 47% in 1900 and continuously diminishing. It was also noted that the ratio of physicians in private practice was dropping rather rapidly, and the deficit was obviously in what was termed the “Family Physician Potential.”

The general response to this precipitous decline was “this is an age of specialization.” The founders of the Board could only affirm this fact, believing that this response to the dearth of General Practitioners strengthened their argument for a new generalist-type of specialty called “Family Practice.” Many students expressed the concern that the broad body of knowledge required for general practice was too great. This concern was also based in truth, in light of the tremendous expansion of medical knowledge and skills in the past few decades. Four years of medical school and a year of internship was indeed not adequate. The inadequacy of this training could be remedied only by having residency programs in a new specialty, Family Practice, argued the proponents of the specialty.

Additional factors explaining the decline were the lack of “prestige” assigned to the general practitioner in comparison to his/her more “specialized” colleagues as well as the difficulty experienced by the general practitioner in obtaining hospital privileges which were being given increasingly only to those physicians who were board certified.

In view of the data gathered by the Board proponents, it was proposed that:

* Family Practice IS a specialty, and
* as a specialty, Family Practice deserves well-defined but flexible graduate training programs, and
* that a Board of Family Practice is essential for the certification of competency of Family Physicians and for the participation in the guidance and approval of training programs.

The specialty of Family Practice, based on the heritage of General Practice, would have graduate programs (residencies) for physicians whose training would encompass 1) first-contact care; 2) continuous care; 3) comprehensive care; 4) personal care (caritas); 5) family care; and, 6) competency in scientific general medicine.

Nicholas J. Pisacano, M.D.
First Executive Director, Deceased

* Renamed in 2005 to the American Board of Family Medicine

Let me preface this by saying something that will ring true THROUGHOUT this FAQ, and that is, MEDICINE IS REGIONAL. Let me repeat that again so that it sinks in: MEDICINE IS REGIONAL. What goes down in rural Kansas does NOT necessarily go down in South Florida. What is acceptable in New York City might NOT be acceptable in Dallas. Other factors that contribute to what an FP can do are:

– Availability of other practitioners to do a procedure in a particular region

– POLITICS, POLITICS, POLITICS – Local hospital/regional politics play a MAJOR ROLE in what can be done by whom.

– How aggressive the particular FP has been in getting the necessary training in order to be competent in that procedure.

– What the local insurance companies are willing to pay for. Obviously, one is not going to do a procedure if there is no chance for reimbursement.

– How much EXTRA one is willing to pay in malpractice insurance premiums for the privilege of getting covered for that procedure.

– What the local hospital credentialing committee will allow in terms of staff privileges.

That being said, here is a partial list of procedures that FPs can do, depending on the ABOVE factors:

– Joint injections (knee, shoulder, etc.)
– Suturing of lacerations
– Biopsies (punch, excisional, shave, etc.)
– Cryotherapy
– Central line and peripheral line placement
– Closed reduction of simple fractures
– Drainage of simple abscesses
– Normal vaginal deliveries
– C-sections
– Tubal ligation
– Newborn circumcision
– Chest tube placement
– Endotracheal intubation
– Conscious sedation