Here's an excerpt (though condaluted) from my health economics textbook (The Economics of Health and Health Care by Folland et al.):
The Donor Preference Hypothesis by Hall and Lindsay (Journal of Law and Economics 23: 55-80.):
"In summary, we may say that organized medicine historically exerted considerable influence over the supply of trained physicians. Such influence is consistent with a view of the profession as one seeking above-normal returns by trying to control entry of new physicians. However, data in recent decades indicate that medical shcool enrollments are responsive to market forces. These data further suggest that continuing to view medical education as controlled by a monolithic of conspiratorial medical profession is somewhat implausable."
Victor Fuchs' alternative argument (in his book Who Shall Live?):
"In 1974, Victor Fuchs wrote that 'most economists believe that part [of physicians' high incomes] represents a monopoly return to physicians resulting for restrictions on entry to profession and other barriers to competition' (p. 58). Fuchs refers to the claim that physicians restrict entry to their profession in order to drive up prices for their srervices and thus themselves maker larger incomes [...] Kessel argued that monopoly power was attained by organized medicine in several ways, two of the most important being licensure and control of access to medical education. Kessel believes that control over medical education exerted by physicians is primarily through the American Medical Association."
Thoughts???