“without retaking various licensing exams and fulfilling burdensome requirements. The purpose of these licensing restrictions was to limit the number of physicians that could legally practice in any particular state, thus keeping their rates higher than a true free market would have resulted in.”
The above and the rest of your whole post is complete nonsense. Physicians relocate to different states all the time. In most states, obtaining a license is primarily a function of the state performing an investigation to assure proper degrees, credentials, and past performance. In uncomplicated cases, this can take as little as 60 days in many states.
>>>Physicians relocate to different states all the time.
No they don’t. If they could do so “all the time,” they would. Since they don’t, it’s because there are artificial state-created hoops through which they must jump. That takes time and energy: two resources that are always scarce.
>>>In most states, obtaining a license is primarily a function of the state performing an investigation to assure proper degrees, credentials, and past performance.
LOL! Right. That’s what I posted before. And although the sales pitch for such state investigation is that it’s to “protect the public interest,” the actual economic OUTCOME is to restrict the number of physicians able to respond to the demand for medical care in a given location. This is combined with restrictions on the number of medical schools that can be created (and, of course, WHO can create them) and therefore, a restriction on the number of people admitted to medical school. The sales pitch: “IT’S TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND KEEP THE QUALITY OF MEDICAL CARE HIGH!!” The actual economic effect: FEWER DOCTORS.
Try doing a little homework, catnip hombre:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_5.pdf
As for current state licensing burdens on new physicians, or those already in practice who want to move or practice in another state, the AMA site says this:
“Even for physicians with uncomplicated histories who submit complete and accurate applications, delays in obtaining a medical license may be encountered. Physicians should plan for at least a 60-day period from the time they submit a completed application for license and the actual date licensure is granted. Physicians who are graduates of a medical school outside the United States should anticipate a slightly longer period. All physicians should be cognizant of the fact that, in general, the highest volume of licensure applications is received between the months of April and September. This is the peak period because physicians with families want to relocate before the academic school year starts for their children, residents want and need licensure to begin practicing, and state employees with school-age children often take their earned vacation time during this period. Finally, it is important to remember that hospital credentialing and qualification for medical malpractice insurance are based on possession of full and unrestricted licensure. This too may mean additional time before a physician can actually begin practicing.
Physicians informed about the process and working cooperatively with the licensing board need not find licensing an unpleasant experience. Members of the medical profession should always remember that the business of medical licensing boards is to protect the public from unqualified and unfit physicians. However, licensing boards also strive to ensure a process that protects the legal rights and privileges of physicians. While maintaining this balance often appears bureaucratic and cumbersome, the end result is improved health care for the people of the United States.”
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/education-careers/becoming-physician/medical-licensure.page
I don’t know what an “uncomplicated history” is, but I’ll bet most physicians have **some** complication somewhere in their past that needs “investigation.” Most people do, don’t you think so? I do. And 60 days? Let’s see. At 5 days per week, that’s at least 12 weeks, or 3 months just to be investigated. The AMA admits that it might even take longer. 4 months? 6 months? I don’t know. The AMA doesn’t know. And guess what, catniphomme . . . neither does the applying physician. In your opinion, does a state of not-knowing how long an investigation might take encourage lots of relocating? Or would it tend to discourage it?
I think it discourages it — most economists who favor voluntary market-based solutions to problems think so, too — and furthermore, I believe that discouragement is ultimately the real **purpose** of the investigations. Once more, just so you get it:
The sales pitch? “We investigate for the purpose of maintaining high standards of medical care. It’s for the innocent public’s own good.”
The actual economic outcome? Fewer doctors move around, so the supply of medical care can never easily satisfy the demand for it. And the result of that is, of course, higher incomes for medical practitioners.
Nice try, but no lollipop for you, catnip.
Oh, and while you’re wondering what’s just happened to you, watch this excellent video of Milton Friedman speaking to doctors at the Mayo Clinic, around 1978. The lecture is mainly on the danger of socialized medicine, but he touches on the issue of state licensure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJgbc8ojYUg&list=PL5E904E0D6DCAAA62
This particular upload appears to be divided into 6 parts. Pay particular attention to the Q&A toward the end.
You’re welcome.
Enjoy!