Interstate Reciprocity Research Articles

Exploring the relationship between community colleges’ participation in SARA and enrollment in distance education

AbstractWith the growth in distance education programs and other interstate activities, community colleges increasingly need to be authorized by multiple states. State authorization provides the legal approval for postsecondary education providers to offer credentials and conduct related activities. Participation in the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA) allows an institution to provide distance education to students in other SARA‐member states by honoring its original state authorization through interstate reciprocity. For community colleges, SARA reduces the administrative burden to participate in distance education. This article examines trends in SARA participation and the relationship between this participation and distance education enrollment. Using NC‐SARA and IPEDS data, we find that participation in SARA has grown rapidly, particularly among colleges with higher online enrollments. Distance education enrollments have likewise grown at community colleges, suggesting that SARA has successfully helped institutions maintain and grow multistate distance education programs.

The New Fintech Federalism

U.S. law has struggled to accommodate the rise of fintech. Instead, the United States has lumbered under a division of regulatory authority between the state and federal governments designed for a financial landscape comprised of banks and large, systemically important shad-ow banks. To catch up to the market, state and federal officials have under-taken a diverse array of initiatives. Numerous regulators have relied on the prevailing paradigm of the past century, seeking to extend its already stretched logic into the realm of fintech and exacerbating its many shortcomings in the process. But several regulatory initiatives of the past decade have broken with prior thinking and charted a different path, one that redefines the relative realms of the federal and state governments and promises a legal regime suited to the technological realities of twenty-first century finance. This emergent paradigm—the New Fintech Federalism—constitutes a radical reversal of the prior division of authority be-tween state and federal actors. Through both cooperative and unilateral initiatives, the states are increasingly adopting an entity-based approach rooted in interstate reciprocity that inures the benefits of jurisdictional competition and reduces the costs of redundant mandates. Meanwhile, by focusing on financial activities, the federal government is pursuing a consumer protection framework less prone to arbitrage and a view of prudential risk suited to the fragmentation of fintech. This Article is the first to identify the New Fintech Federalism, examining how its disparate set of legal experiments could revolutionize U.S. financial regulation. It also details a statutory intervention that would promote the interests of entrepreneurs and consumer protection advocates alike by codifying this emergent approach. Far from jettisoning federalism, this Article’s proposed legislation would harness the distinctive strengths of the state and federal governments to bolster America’s economic vitality and global competitiveness.

On Step 1 Mania, USMLE Score Reporting, and Financial Conflict of Interest at the National Board of Medical Examiners.

Though intended to inform a binary decision on initial medical licensure, the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is frequently used for screening candidates for residency positions. Some have argued that reporting results as pass/fail would honor the test's purpose while preventing inappropriate use. To date, the USMLE's sponsor organizations have declined to make such a change. In this Perspective, the authors examine the history and mission of the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), trace the rise of "Step 1 mania," and consider the current financial incentives for the NBME in implementing a pass/fail score-reporting policy.The NBME was founded in 1915 to address the lack of interstate reciprocity in medical licensure examination. With the creation of the USMLE in 1992, a single pathway for licensure was established, and the organization's original mission was achieved. Yet even after fulfilling its primary purpose, the NBME-classified as a nonprofit organization-has seen its revenues rise dramatically over the past 2 decades. Much of the increased revenue is derived from test products and services not required for medical licensure, with sales driven by the increasing importance of Step 1 scores in residency selection. Revenue from these products and services would likely decline if the NBME reported Step 1 results as pass/fail.A financial conflict of interest occurs when a judgment concerning a primary interest may be influenced by a secondary interest, such as financial gain. The data presented here demonstrate that the NBME has a conflict of interest in its current score-reporting policy. Possible remedies, such as disclosure, recusal, divestiture, and restructuring, are considered.

An Analysis of Certificates of Rehabilitation in the United States

ABSTRACT An impediment to offender reintegration and rehabilitation is so-called collateral consequences—restrictions imposed by state and/or federal laws that apply to people who have been arrested, convicted, or incarcerated. Some laws limit formerly incarcerated individuals’ eligibility for certain occupations and professional licensure and substantially restrict employment opportunities. In this paper, we examine bars on employment and licensure and the ways states are addressing issues that impact an individual’s ability to obtain lawful employment or licensure. We examine each state’s process related to either a restoration of civil rights or a judicial administrative certificate that enables those with a criminal record to have a significantly better chance of obtaining employment or licensure. In particular, we focus on certificates of rehabilitation (COR). These certificates provide the recipient with the right not to be denied employment or licensure solely based on their criminal record. Findings reveal that only 16 states and the District of Columbia have CORs. States with CORs vary considerably in their process for obtaining a certificate, and only one state allows for interstate reciprocity of CORs. We discuss the policy implications of these results.

Licensure anachronisms: Is it time for a change?

Practicing independently as a psychologist in the United States requires licensure in each of the 50 states in which one wishes to practice as well as the District of Columbia. Although attempts to establish interstate reciprocity have met with some level of success, psychologists licensed to practice independently in one state have no assurance that other states will recognize and grant equal status. The author's experience of applying for licensure in 3 states is discussed as a way of identifying areas of difficulty encountered by psychologists in this process. Suggestions are made to improve the process so that licensing board activity might be more in line with its designated function, which is the protection of the consumer.

Perspectives on the Changing Spirit of GATT

Traditionally, the ECJ has treated the international legal framework of the external trade law of the Community with judicial self restraint. Especially the GATT was perceived as a forum for interstate negotiations driven by the of intergovernmental reciprocity. Thus, the ECJ has concluded that the GATT should be protected from intrusion by national authorities and cannot be invoked directly before the court. However, in the context of new developments, GATT and WTO-law are increasingly seen differently: International trade rules can serve as a quasi-constitutional constraint on excessive national trade policy. Basic principles such as the Most Favored Nation clause, the principle of non-discrimination and the prohibition of quantitative restrictions are reinterpreted as protection of economic rights of individuals rather than as protection of interstate reciprocity. Application of GATT-rules by national authorities is thus essential for the effective implementation of the spirit of GATT to fight a potential bias in favor of protectionism. This article comments on the historic conditions and the development of this fundamental change in the perception of the spitit of the GATT and tries to assess its consequences.

Out of the Shadows: Confronting America’s Mental Illness Crisis, 2nd ed.

Out of the Shadows: Confronting America’s Mental Illness Crisis, 2nd ed.

The Search for Career Opportunities: A Look at Interstate Reciprocity

Are you prepared for the unpleasant possibility that your job may be elimi nated ? This writer offers tips for those who, facing such a situation, may seek employment in other states.

Model Mandatory Certification Program for Water Works Operators: Committee Report

This article presents a report of the AWWA committee on a model mandatory certification program for water works operators. The model mandatory certification program was developed in two forms in an attempt to satisfy the two basic philosophies of state legislatures: for those states requiring the minimum of detail in the statute and incorporating the implementing details in the regulation, a short‐form act and an accompanying long‐form regulation have been prepared; or those states that want more detail in the basic statute, a long‐form act together with an accompanying short‐form regulation have been prepared. There may be instances where local conditions or rules might require minor variations in the model act. However, it should be recognized that the model program has been developed for one important purpose – to attain the maximum degree of program uniformity to permit interstate reciprocity.

Administrative Inter-State Reciprocity

Administrative Inter-State Reciprocity

Interstate Reciprocity in Teacher Education-Certification

Encouraging progress is being made toward the free movement of qualified teachers across state lines, as revealed by the study reported here. Three of the nation's best informed students of the reciprocity problem have collaborated in the preparation of the report. Mr. Stin nett is associate secretary of the National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards. Mr. Bowers, su pervisor of the Division of Teacher Edu cation, Ohio State Department of Educa tion, is president of the National Asso ciation of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification. Mr. Robert, dean of the School of Education, Louisi ana State University, is president of the Southern Association of Colleges and Sec ondary Schools. This is the first of a series of Commis sion Studies in Teacher Education which will have their original publication in regular issues of THE JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION from time to time. Reprints of this report are available at cost to JOUR NAL subscribers.

Interstate Reciprocity for Approved Laboratories

Interstate Reciprocity for Approved Laboratories Affiliation William Levin CopyRight*Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Branch American Public Health Association in Salt Lake City, Utah, May 27, 1948. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.39.5_Pt_1.635 Published Online: September 06, 2011

Interstate Reciprocity in Licensing Physicians

To Editor:— InThe Journalof October 15, p. 1397, is a communication headed, Interstate Reciprocity in License to Practice, which is much overdrawn, although probably unintentionally. The writer appears to be much put out with present methods used in examination and licensure of practitioners of 10 to 25 years' standing, and refers to this tyranny against which masses of older practitioners should rise up. He also designates trained modern graduate as one of the inexperienced tyro and compend brigade. If doctor really wishes to change his location without an examination, it would be well for him to get Laws (abstract) Regulating Practice... from American Medical Association, and he will find that many of states make provision for old practitioner by reciprocating on basis of his diploma alone, without examination. However, if an examination appears necessary, I would suggest that

Interstate Reciprocity in Licensing Physicians

To the Editor:— This subject is not receiving the attention it should receive by the medical profession in general. To be sure an occasional article appears from time to time in medical journals, but that is not enough. More action is practitioner—for the physician who is in good standing with his local and state societies and the American Medical Association, and who has been in active practice for the last ten or more years. Suppose that for his own health, or that of some other member of his family, or for any other good reason, he wants to go into some other state. If the state in which he wishes to locate does not reciprocate with the state in which he has been practicing, he must then go before the board of medical examiners and pass an examination before he can get his license; an examination which probably three-fourths of

Interstate Reciprocity in Licensing Physicians

To the Editor:— The letter by Dr. Dunlop inThe Journal, October 15, p. 1397, is of interest to every old practitioner. The ideals for which state boards were crated were made by the physicians themselves, but it seems that the moment people create an ideal and secure a law to fulfil that ideal, some state board official will invariably try to interpret it as if he were the law itself. Recent experience with one state board seems to indicate that it is trying to make it just as hard as it can for the older practitioner and just as easy as it can for the new graduate. Reasonable educational standards and ten years of reputable practice ought to entitle any one to receive a reciprocal license in any state.

Interstate Reciprocity in License to Practice

To the Editor:— The subject of interstate medical reciprocity is perhaps trite but is one, I am afraid, which will constantly recur until it is settled right and to the satisfaction of higher-class graduates of from ten to twenty-live years' standing. At present the bulk of the state laws are entirely in favor of the inexperienced tyro and the compend brigade. I am thoroughly in favor of good, stringent laws calling for high preliminary and professional requirements and I do not think any older practitioner should expect reciprocity unless he has above the average attainments which were in vogue at the time of his graduation. It is not to be expected that any physician of many years' standing, no matter how good a school he came from or how good his previous education, can successfully complete a state board examination on those fundamentals which he has long since forgotten save

Interstate Reciprocity and Frauds in Medical Schools.

San Francisco, Nov. 19, 1906. <h3>To the Editor:</h3> —InThe Journal, Oct. 13, 1906, under the above heading, Dr. Dudley Tait makes reply to my former communication on that subject. Dr. Tait alleges that my communication contained "many grave accuracies." I wish to show that Dr. Tait is seriously mistaken concerning those "inaccuracies." I also wish to acknowledge my thanks to Dr. Dudley Tait for some of the information he has given concerning the matter under discussion. 1. I am happy to learn that "the requirements in California" are determined by the Association of American Medical Colleges. I, myself, had believed, and the belief is common among the profession of California, that such has not been the case, but that each meeting of the board brought out a crop of new "determinations." In the future the rulings of the board ought to be quite simple and plain. 2. The records

Interstate Reciprocity and Frauds in Medical Schools.

Interstate Reciprocity and Frauds in Medical Schools.

The One-Year Clause in Reciprocity.

Chicago, Nov. 24, 1906. <h3>To the Editor:</h3> —A few of the states engaging in interstate reciprocity require that the original license on which the applicant requests reciprocal recognition, shall have been issued at least one year prior to the issuance of the license under reciprocity. On June 20, 1906, the Illinois State Board of Health adopted a resolution to the effect that, after January 1, 1907, it would decline to reciprocate with any state exacting the above requirement. A short time later, the Minnesota State Board of Medical Examiners rescinded the above rule, which had previously been adopted by it, and the Wisconsin State Board of Medical Examiners likewise placed itself in accord with the Illinois Board. One of the states with which Illinois had previously reciprocated, at once terminated reciprocity, although several months intervened before the rule of the Illinois Board would become effective—an act strangely at variance with

Interstate Reciprocity and Frauds in Medical Schools.

Detroit, Oct. 20, 1906. To the Editor: —Owing to the importance of the subject involved, it seems necessary for me to reply briefly to the communication of Mr. William C. Tait, attorney for the California State Board of Medical Examiners, which appeared inThe Journal, October 6. Dr. Dudley Tait, his brother, and a member of the above board, inThe Journal, September 1, called attention to a phase of interstate reciprocity involving fraudulent or defective diplomas, and assumed in the administration of medical reciprocity that all diplomas, including fraudulent and defective ones, were received as prima facie evidence (more properly, final evidence) of qualification. In my reply, September 15, it was shown conclusively that the administration method employed in reciprocity in going behind the certificate presented for endorsement, should make absolutely impossible the acceptance of a fraudulent or even a defective diploma in reciprocity. So far, so good. But