The rules are still being written.
We read these statutes for a living, which puts us in an unusually good position to say where they work and where they do not. We write to boards and legislatures, and we respond when they consult.
What we argue
- The bottleneck is residency capacity, not competence
- Physicians who have trained and practised for years abroad are held out of practice by a training place they do not need. Several states have already decided that, and the rest have the same evidence in front of them.
- A pathway that nobody can read is not a pathway
- Where the criteria sit across a statute, a regulation and a board policy that disagree, the practical effect is a route no candidate can plan around. Much of what we submit is about the drafting.
- Supervision terms decide whether a pathway is used
- A route that obliges an institution to supervise indefinitely, or leaves the obligation undefined, will not be taken up by the employers it was written for. This is where good pathways most often fail in practice.
- Publish the outcomes
- Very few states publish how many licences a pathway has issued or how those physicians are practising. Without that, every legislature debating one is arguing from anecdote.
If your board or committee is looking at this.
We will respond to a consultation, comment on a draft, or set out what the states that have already done this actually wrote. The reference behind those answers is public and every requirement in it is cited.
This page describes what we do. It states no rule of any state medical board, and nothing on it is a source to rely on. This is information, not legal advice. Using this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.