medical license question - multiple licenses, "inactive vs retired" license etc.

[drindochin]

Hi Everyone,

I have a medical licensing question for you all. I'm from California and am doing my preliminary internship here this year (more than half-way through now!). My program is offering to pay the initial application fee of a California medical license ($493) but I'd have to pay the actual license fee ($416) and the license has to be renewed every two years which would come out of my pocket. So, my question is, should I take them up on their offer, given that I'm actually going to be doing a 3-year residency out-of-state after I finish intern year?

I plan to come back to California, if not for fellowship, then at some point later down the road just to settle down. I'd hate to have to pay $800 every 2 years if I'm not actively using my california license, but I read on the medical board of California that you can apply for something called a "retired" license or an "inactive license." I'm a bit confused as to the difference between the two, but it seems any physician can apply for either status. In the former, the renewal fees are waived until you decide to reinstate your license; and in the latter, it seems you still have to pay the renewal fees but you can't practice in California (I don't know why anyone would choose the latter over the former if you're having to pay the renewal fee still).

So, my plan was to go ahead and apply for the license this year (which would expire in 2013, more than half way through my out-of-state residency), and prior to letting it expire, applying for "retired" status until I know for sure I'm coming back.

Does this seem like a reasonable plan? Has anyone done something like this?

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Smurfette]

It's a reasonable plan (Also, I think you just will pay the $493 q2y and the $416 is just for the first time but not for subsequent renewals).

However, get the inactive license and not the retired license. Aside from the obvious connotations (meaning simply inactive in CA vs. truly retired from practicing medicine), it could end up causing you more problems to have gotten a "retired" license....how easy is it REALLY to un-retire a license vs. simply reactivating? And other states, which will always have to inquire to CA state board to confirm your licensing history may be confused by the 'retired' label and want clarification as to why in one state you are listed as 'retired' but are actively practicing medicine elsewhere (as opposed to simply being inactive in a state, which is a known way to maintain your license while elsewhere). Same for hospital credentialling committees and insurance companies which verify your information. Trust me, you don't need any additional hoops in those processes....they take long enough as it is. Just my two cents.

 

[drindochin]

Thanks for replying smurfette.

So, the renewal fee for a CA license is actually ~$800 every 2 years. Since I'll still be out of state 2 years from now, that would essentially be $1200 out of my own pocket (the $416 license fee + $800 renewal fee) to maintain a license that I'm not using... Which is why I was thinking of paying the $416, then changing the status of my license to "retired" which would waive any renewal fees until I'm completely sure I'm coming back to practice in CA. As far as I could tell, changing the status to "inactive" doesn't change anything except prohibit you from practicing in CA (while still making you pay the $800 renewal fee every 2 years!)...

The info on the Medical Board of CA has a form for changing the status of a "retired" or "inactive" license to "active" (same form for both) and seems to suggest that the process for either is virtually the same (you just have to pay the renewal fee and also show 50 hours of CME credits).

But I see your point in how confusing it might be to other state medical boards to see the status "retired"... This is why I was hoping someone who's gone through a similar process could advise?... I definitely don't want to cause more problems for myself down the road!

Thanks again for your input!

 

[NotAProgDirector]

I'll disagree. Don't get a license you don't need. You plan to come back to Cali, but who knows? It will slow any further licensing process going forward.

If you come back for a fellowship or a job in Cali, you will need a full license (all PGY-3+'s need full licenses in Cali). Any job will pay for ALL licensing costs. Fellowships may pay for some of it also, since it's necessary for your job.

I'd simply wait until you return to Cali, since you know for certain that you'll be elsewhere for 3 years.

 

[drindochin]

Thanks for the additional input aProgDirector.

I'm curious to know what you meant when you said getting a CA license would slow any further licensing process going forward?...

Thanks!

 

[gutonc]

Thanks for the additional input aProgDirector.

I'm curious to know what you meant when you said getting a CA license would slow any further licensing process going forward?...

Thanks!

Whenever you apply for a license, the state medical board will query all the states you previously/currently had/have a license in. This is in addition to a criminal and NPD background check. So if you are applying for your first license, nothing to check. Every time you apply for another license in a different state however, they'll check with every other state you've ever been licensed in (training/temporary licenses excluded).

So the more licenses you get, the more hassle it is to get the next one.

 

[Goober]

Hi I am in a similar position regarding retired status vs inactive for California medical license. I know you posted this 2 years ago but any update on getting retired status in CA? Any up date on how this worked out?

 

[DocBlin]

It maybe a hassle having licenses in a few states and additional costs, BUT always better to have a license to practice for a few years in a few possible states. Just speeds things up if and when you decide where you are going to practice after residency. If you are in the northeast a NY, Nj, Conn licenses would be smart. This is what I am telling my 3rd year Chief resident FM son. I also advising him to get a FL license (where I practice). Just my look on things.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

It maybe a hassle having licenses in a few states and additional costs, BUT always better to have a license to practice for a few years in a few possible states. Just speeds things up if and when you decide where you are going to practice after residency. If you are in the northeast a NY, Nj, Conn licenses would be smart. This is what I am telling my 3rd year Chief resident FM son. I also advising him to get a FL license (where I practice). Just my look on things.

But like someone said above, each license adds to credentialing/licensing time in the future, plus there is the costs associated with each license to maintain them. I'd say get only the license that you need at that time, though if you move, I would keep the prior licenses still active. Even though it costs money, it allows the flexibility to easily move to that state without going through the whole process again.