We need national FMG/IMG licensure

[teratos]

BTS
I am a little to the right of Atilla the Hun. I don't think CAs policy has anything to do with liberalism. I think it is actually pretty smart to look into the med schools of people who may practice in your state and treat your mother.


Miklos
Give it a few more years and without IMGs the physician shortage woould be near catastrophic. That's why I think using only the CA criteria wouldn't fly. G

[neilc]

Originally Posted by bts4202

I think that states would be up in arms because a lot of states look at cali as an extreme example of liberalism gone haywire. Many people, state reps and constituents, might be reluctant to just adopt cali's rules without adding their own additions and/or subtractions. They may also feel a sense of jealousy, that one state gets to make the rules for everyone. That may also spawn rebellion. Senators are people and all people get jealous of others with power. It is possible.

well, anything is possible, but in this case i would not think this is too likely. this is not a power struggle between senators, but mainly a way to appease the voters/citizens that the state is looking out for their well-being.

if constituents of a state are worried about getting qualified foreign doctors, adopting the california list is a free way to allay some fears. a brilliant move, in my opinion. all upside, politically. i do agree that it may limit accessability for some docs, but, realistically, there are not that many grads each year from all these small schools. they can still get the indian/pakistani grads, etc...those schools are typically ok in cali, if they have been around educating the nationals of a country. the only schools that will be excluded are those that market to americans (such as non-native language programs and small carib schools) that haven't applied or that have been denied in cali.

this is a pretty small potatoes issue, and it makes sense politically. it is hard to imagine a senator or whoever saying, no lets adjust this, it is from california, those liberals! (and if this is true about liberalism, wouldn't they likely want to restrict it more? i don't see this law as being a very good example of the "liberalism" of california, which is simply not true for the most part. think of who elected governors such as reagan and pete wilson...)

anyhow, the logical conclusion for a state concerned about quality control for med schools is to adopt the list from somebody who has already done the work. new mexico did it. texas used california wording. and i have heard rumblings that other states may consider it...when i called colorado, they even mentioned the list! so, whatever we personally think about the list, the likelihood of it being used in several more states exists. how likely, and in how many states, nobody knows. but, i would bet that it will happen.

[Miklos]

Originally Posted by neilc

anyhow, the logical conclusion for a state concerned about quality control for med schools is to adopt the list from somebody who has already done the work. new mexico did it. texas used california wording. and i have heard rumblings that other states may consider it...when i called colorado, they even mentioned the list! so, whatever we personally think about the list, the likelihood of it being used in several more states exists. how likely, and in how many states, nobody knows. but, i would bet that it will happen.

Neil,

Which list? The one that is posted on the California Med. Board's website of disapproved/unapproved schools or the one you need to ask Pat Park about (e.g. schools that are not disapproved/unapproved, but are not approved as they have not applied for recognition)?

I believe that this a central to the issue. Any discussion of a National or state by state adoption of the California 'list' must address this issue. Again, the lack of transparency on the med board's part creates a problem. Do you trust the med board to act in your interest as an USIMG?

Miklos

[Miklos]

Originally Posted by teratos

Miklos
Give it a few more years and without IMGs the physician shortage woould be near catastrophic. That's why I think using only the CA criteria wouldn't fly. G

I hope you are right.

Miklos

[bts4202]

Neilc,

I completely agree with you that some states may want to use cali's list to find out if a school has been disapproved by cali. But it is much easier, in my opinion, to get people to do things when they can choose it, rather than when it is forced upon them such as a national licensing system would be. We all know that people become instantly reluctant to follow something that is forced regardless of its merit. Since it is written into the very foundation of our laws in the US that there needs to be as little federal involvemnet in states issue as possible, I think there would be resistance. I may be wrong of course, but thats my reasoning.

I am all in favor of some type of national recognition or something to make it easier for states to recognize good schools from bad. Also, it would simplify the whole IMG situation, once approved nationally, you wouldn't have to worry about going state to state. I just think that it needs to be created by all the representatives, not just handed down from one state.

[neilc]

Originally Posted by bts4202

But it is much easier, in my opinion, to get people to do things when they can choose it, rather than when it is forced upon them such as a national licensing system would be. We all know that people become instantly reluctant to follow something that is forced regardless of its merit.

agreed. any sort of national regulation would be opposed strongly by many folks, i think. i really, really doubt that it will ever happen.

[neilc]

Originally Posted by Miklos

Neil,

Which list? The one that is posted on the California Med. Board's website of disapproved/unapproved schools or the one you need to ask Pat Park about (e.g. schools that are not disapproved/unapproved, but are not approved as they have not applied for recognition)?

I believe that this a central to the issue. Any discussion of a National or state by state adoption of the California 'list' must address this issue. Again, the lack of transparency on the med board's part creates a problem. Do you trust the med board to act in your interest as an USIMG?

Miklos

i am speaking of the list of all schools that are approved, so i am guessing that this is not published on the web site. basically, if you can get a license in california, then you would be ok.

as a citizen of california, i do believe that the medical board is looking out for me. and, they do the same, in a more paternalistic way, for me as a med student. basically, they say "don't go to a school not on the list". i think it is a bit foolish, in many instances (our programs are a good example of that. we are exact parralles of existing programs, so why do we have to jump through hoops?) but i do believe that they are simply erring on the side of conservatism. i don't neccessarily want that kind of paternalism, but that is the way it is in california.

as for transparency, i am not sure i understand what you are getting at...we know if a school is approved or not by a simple phone call. if you want to attend an approved school, just call the state and ask about your school. anyone can apply. it is a bit lengthy of a process, but that is really not asking to much, IMHO...i guess i would need some clarification on what is not transparent.

[bts4202]

Originally Posted by neilc

agreed. any sort of national regulation would be opposed strongly by many folks, i think. i really, really doubt that it will ever happen.

Holy Shishkabob batman... neil and I agreed on something!!!!!!!!

Hell must be freezing over right now....lol

[neilc]

Originally Posted by bts4202

Holy Shishkabob batman... neil and I agreed on something!!!!!!!!

Hell must be freezing over right now....lol

hey, don't tell anyone about this...we have our reputations to consider!

[Miklos]

Originally Posted by neilc

i am speaking of the list of all schools that are approved, so i am guessing that this is not published on the web site. basically, if you can get a license in california, then you would be ok.

as a citizen of california, i do believe that the medical board is looking out for me. and, they do the same, in a more paternalistic way, for me as a med student. basically, they say "don't go to a school not on the list". i think it is a bit foolish, in many instances (our programs are a good example of that. we are exact parralles of existing programs, so why do we have to jump through hoops?) but i do believe that they are simply erring on the side of conservatism. i don't neccessarily want that kind of paternalism, but that is the way it is in california.

as for transparency, i am not sure i understand what you are getting at...we know if a school is approved or not by a simple phone call. if you want to attend an approved school, just call the state and ask about your school. anyone can apply. it is a bit lengthy of a process, but that is really not asking to much, IMHO...i guess i would need some clarification on what is not transparent.

Lack of transparency takes these forms (IMHO):

1) No codified process for reviewing (or figuring out which) med schools to review. The proposed regulation has not yet been adopted to my knowledge.
2) No "master list" posted on the web as to which schools are o.k. and which ones are not.
3) No warning to potential med students

I think that they can do much better.

Miklos