Scope of practice and professional self-governance on trial at the Supreme Court

[vokey588]

North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission

Basically, the NC Board of Dental Examiners told non-dentists that they couldn't offer cosmetic teeth-whitening. The FTC sues the NCBDE under anti-trust law, and the case has made its way to the Supreme Court. If the court rules against the dentists (saying it is monopolistic for a medical board to prevent others from practicing), it could make it much more difficult for State medical boards to limit the encroachment of NPs and other mid-levels.

Consumer advocacy groups, conservative free-market people, and (big surprise) NPs have come out on the side of the FTC. Pretty much the only people supporting the dentists are the ADA, AMA, state medical boards, and the lawyer lobby. The conservative free-market types are asking the SCOTUS to eliminate medical licensing boards altogether and let the "free market" decide who can practice medicine or not.

Some other articles if you're interested:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-struggles-with-teeth-whitening-case-1413319508

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/a...ing-boards-have-immunity-from-antitrust-laws/

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/medical-licensing-obstacle-affordable-quality-care

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e3b89a-53ca-11e4-ba4b-f6333e2c0453_story.html

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission

Basically, the NC Board of Dental Examiners told non-dentists that they couldn't offer cosmetic teeth-whitening. The FTC sues the NCBDE under anti-trust law, and the case has made its way to the Supreme Court. If the court rules against the dentists (saying it is monopolistic for a medical board to prevent others from practicing), it could make it much more difficult for State medical boards to limit the encroachment of NPs and other mid-levels.

Consumer advocacy groups, conservative free-market people, and (big surprise) NPs have come out on the side of the FTC. Pretty much the only people supporting the dentists are the ADA, AMA, state medical boards, and the lawyer lobby. The conservative free-market types are asking the SCOTUS to eliminate medical licensing boards altogether and let the "free market" decide who can practice medicine or not.

Some other articles if you're interested:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-struggles-with-teeth-whitening-case-1413319508

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/a...ing-boards-have-immunity-from-antitrust-laws/

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/medical-licensing-obstacle-affordable-quality-care

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e3b89a-53ca-11e4-ba4b-f6333e2c0453_story.html

Not really.

In most states, its the law that says who can do what. Medical Boards have no authority over anyone not licensed through them, which is usually limited to MD, DO, PA, RT, and in some places accupuncture.

 

[vokey588]

Not really.

In most states, its the law that says who can do what. Medical Boards have no authority over anyone not licensed through them, which is usually limited to MD, DO, PA, RT, and in some places accupuncture.

Hm, these articles must be confusing the two issues then. They say that the AMA and anesthesiologists' lobbying group came out on the side of the dentists because of their opposition to NP and CRNA encroachment. If you're right then I have a hard time believing that's the reason they're supporting the dentists.

 

[DermViser]

North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission

Basically, the NC Board of Dental Examiners told non-dentists that they couldn't offer cosmetic teeth-whitening. The FTC sues the NCBDE under anti-trust law, and the case has made its way to the Supreme Court. If the court rules against the dentists (saying it is monopolistic for a medical board to prevent others from practicing), it could make it much more difficult for State medical boards to limit the encroachment of NPs and other mid-levels.

Consumer advocacy groups, conservative free-market people, and (big surprise) NPs have come out on the side of the FTC. Pretty much the only people supporting the dentists are the ADA, AMA, state medical boards, and the lawyer lobby. The conservative free-market types are asking the SCOTUS to eliminate medical licensing boards altogether and let the "free market" decide who can practice medicine or not.

Some other articles if you're interested:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-struggles-with-teeth-whitening-case-1413319508

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/a...ing-boards-have-immunity-from-antitrust-laws/

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/medical-licensing-obstacle-affordable-quality-care

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e3b89a-53ca-11e4-ba4b-f6333e2c0453_story.html

Surprise the lawyer lobby supports dentists considering they'll make a killing (pun intended) in malpractice judgements.

 

[vokey588]

Not really.

In most states, its the law that says who can do what. Medical Boards have no authority over anyone not licensed through them, which is usually limited to MD, DO, PA, RT, and in some places accupuncture.

After reading more closely, I think there must be more to this. Justice Breyer, to illustrate his inclination to support the Board, said that he wants brain surgeons to decide who can practice brain surgery. That would seem to suggest that scope of practice is at least somewhat on trial. Maybe the very act of licensing only MDs to practice medicine would be the "scope of practice" aspect of the case.

 

[cbrons]

NPs arent under the authority of the medical boards. I dont understand fully why the NPs dont have complete autonomy given this dynamic


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

 

[Chipster.]

NPs arent under the authority of the medical boards. I dont understand fully why the NPs dont have complete autonomy given this dynamic


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

Because as much as they like to say they're equal to physicians, even they know it's not even close.

 

[deleted503015]

NPs arent under the authority of the medical boards. I dont understand fully why the NPs dont have complete autonomy given this dynamic


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

FYI: In NC, NPs are actually jointly regulated by the Medical Board and the Board of Nursing. One spot on the NC Medical Board is an NP or a PA.

http://www.ncmedboard.org/faqs

• What medical professionals does the Board license and regulate?
  The Board issues licenses to medical doctors (MDs), doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs), physician assistants (PAs), certified clinical perfusionists and anesthesiologist assistants, and regulates their practice. It approves the practice of nurse practitioners and clinical pharmacist practitioners and jointly regulates those professions with the NC Board of Nursing and NC Board of Pharmacy, respectively.
  

 

[Jabbed]

Because as much as they like to say they're equal to physicians, even they know it's not even close.

You underestimate the power of the dark side.

(the dark side = nursing lobbies and unions that ostensibly maintain that mid-level nurses can do the same job as physicians for less. See the 18 states that allow NPs to practice independently.)

 

[Jabbed]

I don't quite see the parallel to mid-levels encroaching on physician scope of practice. The comment about 'neurologists' deciding who gets brain surgery looks like it was meant as a hyperpolic comparison.

 

[DermViser]

NPs arent under the authority of the medical boards. I dont understand fully why the NPs dont have complete autonomy given this dynamic


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

Bc medical boards don't decide scope. State laws do.

 

[DermViser]

I don't quite see the parallel to mid-levels encroaching on physician scope of practice. The comment about 'neurologists' deciding who gets brain surgery looks like it was meant as a hyperpolic comparison.

Sigh: Neurosurgeons not neurologists.

 

[Jabbed]

Sigh: Neurosurgeons not neurologists.

The fact that they referenced neurologists instead of neurosurgeons kind of illustrated how little this has to do with medical scope of practice.

 

[DermViser]

The fact that they referenced neurologists instead of neurosurgeons kind of illustrated how little this has to do with medical scope of practice.

Or it's a WSJ article that doesn't know the nuances of medical education.

 

[Jabbed]

Or it's a WSJ article that doesn't know the nuances of medical education.

It was a quote from one of the justices.

 

[DermViser]

It was a quote from one of the justices.

Which makes even more sense. I don't expect Antonin Scalia or Ruth Bader Ginsberg to know the nuances of medical education.