Is your state considering entering the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact? Educate your legislators about why this is a bad idea. Below is a sample letter you can use to assist your outreach efforts. Even if your state isn’t yet a target start educating your legislators and colleagues today!
Dear Members of the Colorado House of Representatives,
Thank you for your dedicated service to the citizens of Colorado.
We are writing to voice concerns about HB 16-1047 which, if passed, will sign Colorado on to the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact. The Interstate Medical Licensure Compact “may seem like a positive step” at first glance, warns CATO adjunct scholar Shirley Svorny, PhD. She continues, “[t]he compact is being promoted, disingenuously, as addressing license portability and access to interstate telemedicine…. Adding the Compact Commission creates another layer of bureaucracy and costs.”
States that are closely looking at the Compact are increasingly rejecting it and exploring other state-controlled policy options to better accomplish the goal of license portability.
For instance, Maryland’s Compact bill (SB0446) has been withdrawn, for the second year in a row, after an unfavorable recommendation by the Senate committee reviewing the bill. Both the Maryland State Medical Society and Maryland Medical Board are voicing substantial concerns about Compact participation. Both entities recommend alternate legislation to ease license reciprocity in lieu of joining the Compact.
Other states affirmatively rejecting or at least delaying Compact participation include CA, NM, TX, DE, MI, WA, MO, OH, VA, OK, VT, MD, and LA.
A compilation of concerns raised in Maryland and other states can be found at this link: https://goo.gl/obwZe3
Other major concerns we have are as follows:
The Compact supersedes state law and rules made by the largely unaccountable Interstate Commission have the force and effect of law. See http://www.jpands.org/vol21no1/snavely.pdf
Supporters have been glossing over expansive disciplinary and investigative provisions in the Compact by claiming they only apply to physicians seeking licensure through the Compact. However, the Compact language does not restrict all of these broadened powers to Compact licensees. See: http://www.azaaps.org/expansive-disciplinary-and-investigative-provisions-in-interstate-medical-licensure-compact/.
There are significant concerns related to conflicts of interest of some of the entities promoting the Compact. See http://www.jpands.org/vol21no1/kempen.pdf and http://www.jpands.org/vol20no2/kempen.pdf
Current Board Certification recognized by the ABMS or AOABOS is required for Compact participation. Some in the medical regulation community are already suggesting that the Compact‘s requirements are a “prototype” for extending board certification requirements for ALL licenses.
No licenses have been issued thus far through the Compact. There is no hurry to tie the state to this new bureaucratic entity, which has neither had pilot beta testing nor even alpha testing.
Thank you for listening to our concerns. In conclusion, we suggest that Colorado should hold off on joining the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact. There are other state-based solutions to solve the problems the Compact purports to address.