Military Status Medical License in Washington (state, not DC)

[MTGas2B]

Hello all, have a question for some of those practicing in .mil land. I know that while working in a military hospital an unrestricted medical license from any state is valid. I recently learned the state where I hold a license, Washington, offers military status. Come renewal time I write military on the renewal card, send a copy of my orders, pay $0 and your license is now military status. Repeat annually until discharge. In discussion with a colleuge I was warned that a military status license isn't valid for military practice, since it is a resticted license. Now, that colleuge isn't licensed in WA and in reading the FAQ description from WA MQAC (Medical Quality Assurance Comission, isn't it funny the medical board can be called "M Quack") it sounds like the practice on that license isn't really restricted. It specifically says the license can be used throughout the state of Washington.
To read for yourself.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/renewals.htm#9

If I'm reading this correctly, it sounds like I could be active duty stationed in WA, pay $0 for my license every year and moonlight anywhere in the state with a military status license. That really doesn't sound like a restriction to me. Except I'm stationed in California.

I'm curious if anyone has experience with this, specifically with Washington State. Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[edmadison]

Former MAMC (Tacoma, WA) resident here. This came up when I was in residency and we were specifically told that we could not do this. It came down from the DCCS and through JAG. I do not know if there has been a change in the policy since I finished, however.

Ed

 

[backrow]

There's another State that has this as well (Nebraska??) but I know my class was told this was not a valid option.

 

[NavyFP]

The rule is that the license is the same as what a physician in the state would hold to practice. It must allow you to actually practice in the state. This is based on an old Oklahoma license that several military had which was a military only license and did not permit you to practice in the state. Needless to say, these a number of these individuals could not obtain regular licenses, so they skated by on these. Bad docs, bad PR. Now they have tightened the rules. Having a no cost license could give the impression that it is a lesser license and be twisted by the Washington Post or Navy Times into a tale that we are allowing the unworthy to practice in our system. So we are paying for good PR.

 

[bogatyr]

There's another State that has this as well (Nebraska??) but I know my class was told this was not a valid option.

Kansas.

 

[MTGas2B]

The rule is that the license is the same as what a physician in the state would hold to practice. It must allow you to actually practice in the state. This is based on an old Oklahoma license that several military had which was a military only license and did not permit you to practice in the state. Needless to say, these a number of these individuals could not obtain regular licenses, so they skated by on these. Bad docs, bad PR. Now they have tightened the rules. Having a no cost license could give the impression that it is a lesser license and be twisted by the Washington Post or Navy Times into a tale that we are allowing the unworthy to practice in our system. So we are paying for good PR.

This is where I'm hopeful. If you read the link I attached, There is no practice restriction attached to the license, as it allows the holder "to practice throughout the state" That's all I can do with my current license. I fail to see a difference, other than cost, but my credentialing office might when I have to renew my credentials.