Cato Institute: Medical Licensing is Ineffective and Inefficient, and Patients Would Be Better Served by Relying on Brand Recognition

The National Center for Policy Analysis quotes from a recent Cato Institute report written by California State University economics professor and Cato Institute fellow, Shirley Svorny, to reach the headline conclusion that “Medical Licensing Impedes Quality, Affordability of Care.”

“Additionally, says Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, restrictive medical licensure and numerous other needless regulations have kept physician care a cottage industry,” the article states. The article states that Ms. Svorny said “she approached the issue as an economist” and that “Patients are being misled by the license. If there were no licensing, they'd say, who is this guy? And we'd go to national recognition.”

In the Cato Institute Report, “Medical Licensing, an Obstacle to Affordable, Quality Care,” Ms. Svorny argues that “licensure not only fails to protect consumers from incompetent physicians, but, by raising barriers to entry, makes health care more expensive and less accessible.” Devon Herrick continues: “The accounting industry is an example of how medical licensure should work. For instance, a Certified Public Accountant is not exclusively licensed to practice; anyone can hang out a shingle advertising bookkeeping to the public. Yet accounting professionals seeking to prove their skills can obtain that certification to illustrate professional competence, and consumers are free to decide the level of accounting skills they are willing to pay for.”

Ms. Svorny further argues in her report that “Consumers would benefit were states to eliminate professional licensing in medicine and leave education, credentialing, and scope-of-practice decisions entirely to the private sector and the courts.”