One and Done: How Ohio's One-Year, Nonrenewable Visiting Medical Faculty Certificate Is Harming the State's Economic Recovery

Article excerpt

   I. INTRODUCTION

  II. MEDICAL-LICENSING HISTORY AND OHIO'S
      MEDICAL-LICENSING LAWS
      A. America's Early Medical-Licensing
         History: Licensure, Deregulation, Licensure
      B. The Formation of the Modern Medical Board
      C. Ohio's Medical-Licensing History
      D. Ohio's Current Medical-Licensing laws
      E. Ohio's Visiting Faculty Certificate

 III. POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS AGAINST MAKING THE VISITING FACULTY
      CERTIFICATE RENEWABLE
      A. An Argument: The Visiting Faculty
         Certificate is Nonrenewable to Protect
         Patients
      B. An Argument: The Visiting Faculty
         Certificate is Nonrenewable to Manage
         Risk
      C. An Argument: The Board May Be Held
         Liable for Issuing a Renewable Visiting
         Faculty Certificate to a Doctor Who Injures
         a Patient

  IV. THE ONE-YEAR, NONRENEWABLE VISITING
      FACULTY CERTIFICATE NEGATIVELY AFFECTS
      OHIO
      A. The Visiting Faculty Certificate's Cost:
         Lost Federal Grants
      B. The Visiting Faculty Certificate's Cost:
         Lost Tax Revenue
      C. The Visiting Faculty Certificate's Cost:
         Lost Medical Expertise
      D. The Visiting Faculty Certificate's Cost:
         Doctor Shortages at Small, Rural Hospitals

   V. OHIO MUST MAKE THE VISITING FACULTY
      CERTIFICATE RENEWABLE
      A. Other States' Visiting-Faculty Licenses
         1. North Carolina's Medical School
            Faculty License
         2. Michigan's Clinical Academic
            License
         3. California's Certificate of
            Registration
      B. A Renewable Visiting Faculty Certificate:
         A Competitive Ohio and Safer Patients

  VI. ADDITIONAL PATIENT-SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
      FOR THE VISITING FACULTY CERTIFICATE

 VII. AMBIGUITIES IN THE VISITING FACULTY
      CERTIFICATE

VIII. OHIO PRECEDENTS FOR A RENEWABLE
      VISITING FACULTY CERTIFICATE
      A. De Facto Renewals of the Visiting Faculty
         Certificate
      B. Ohio's Original Medical-License Statute
      C. The Limited License of Ohio's Dental
         Profession

  IX. CONCLUSION
      A. The "Terrific Idea": A Renewable
         Visiting Faculty Certificate
      B. The Process of Changing the Law

   X. EPILOGUE

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1992, the State of Ohio Medical Board (the board) recommended that the legislature create the Visiting Faculty Certificate, a license that allows certain non-fully-licensed doctors to practice in the state for one year. (1) A then board member hailed it as a "terrific idea [that would] solve a lot of problems, allowing Ohio to attract physicians" to the state. (2) Unfortunately, because it is nonrenewable and expires after one year, the Visiting Faculty Certificate has not lived up to its promise and has actually harmed Ohio. Consider the following hypothetical about Dr. Marcus Bierman, whose departure from the state illustrates one way that the one-year, nonrenewable Visiting Faculty Certificate can negatively affect Ohio. (3)

Doctors at Case Western Reserve University (Case) recruited Dr. Bierman, an experienced and accomplished German radiologist, to come to Cleveland, Ohio, to conduct medical research. (4) This research involved the clinical care of patients, which requires a medical license. So, before coming to America, Dr. Bierman applied for and received Ohio' s one-year, nonrenewable Visiting Faculty Certificate, the only medical license immediately available to him because he is a foreign-educated doctor. (5) After Dr. Bierman arrived in Cleveland, the National Institutes of Health granted him $300,000 to conduct his research. Dr. Bierman allocated the grant to equipment and salaries for his research assistants and himself.

Dr. Bierman conducted his research for one year, until his Visiting Faculty Certificate expired. Unable to continue his research in Ohio without a medical license, Dr. …