Under current Board rule, there are 3 types of medical schools:
(1) Acceptable approved medical school--A medical school or college located in the United States or Canada that has been accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association Bureau of Professional Education. [Board Rule 163.1(1)]
(2) Acceptable unapproved medical school--A school or college located outside the United States or Canada, which meet two basic criteria: (A) is substantially equivalent to a Texas medical school; and (B) has not been disapproved by a state physician licensing or education agency.
[Board rule 163.1(2)]
(3) Unapproved medical school- These are schools that are not deemed to be equivalent or been disapproved by another agency.
I believe in simple solutions to these types of problems.
Solution one is to deem all foreign medical schools as unapproved as we do not honestly know if all schools are substantially equivalent to a Texas school. This is obviously not politically possible or reasonable. So, that begs the questions, why are certain schools automatically deemed not substantially equivalent based solely due to location? It is not fair nor reasonable.
Therefore, a real solution to this problem is the following:
I believe we maintain the above rules as is with one simple change. That change would be if the Board has licensed an individual from an unapproved medical school and that first person has meet the requirements required under the rules demonstrating their school is "substantially equivalent to a Texas medical school" no future graduate need do so. It is a waste of time and resources for both the individual and Board staff. Moreover, there is no reasonable or logical reason to require an individual to provide the Board information is already has and has approved. There are dozens of physicians who have graduated from unapproved schools with active licenses. There are even more who are currently residents in Texas.
Having a "trial-blazer" perform the work to show someone is substantially equivalent is how the Board handles other medical schools it has not licensed from in the past. Why not do this with schools like SABA and St. Matthews? There are now several graduates practicing in Texas who are went to these schools practicing in Texas. Why does each new application have to go through this if the Board has deemed their individual educational experience substantially equivalent? It is not logical.
Under the current rule, to show one is substantially equivalent, the Board require the following:
(B) A medical school operating outside the United States or Canada may be determined to be substantially equivalent to a Texas medical school if the medical school is designed to select and educate medical students and provide students with the opportunity to acquire a sound basic medical education through training in basic sciences and clinical sciences. The school should provide information about the school's program of advancement of knowledge through research; the school's development of programs of graduate medical education to produce practitioners, teachers, and researchers; and, the school's program to provide opportunity for postgraduate and continuing medical education, for the board's consideration. In addition, to be determined substantially equivalent to a Texas medical school, the medical school's characteristics shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(i) The facilities for basic sciences and clinical training (i.e., laboratories, hospitals, library, etc.) shall be adequate to ensure opportunity for proper education.
(ii) The admissions standards shall ensure that the medical school has a pool of applicants sufficiently large and possessing United States national level qualifications to fill its entering class. Medical schools must select students who possess the intelligence, integrity, and personal and emotional characteristics necessary for them to become effective physicians.
(iii) The curriculum shall meet the requirements for an unapproved medical school as set forth in the "Curriculum Definitions for Course Areas Prescribed by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for Determining Eligibility of International Medical Graduates for Texas Medical Licensure," as adopted by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, as follows:
(I) The basic sciences curriculum shall include the contemporary content of those expanded disciplines that have been traditionally titled gross anatomy, biochemistry, biology, physiology, microbiology, immunology, pathology, pharmacology, and neuroscience.
(II) The fundamental clinical subjects, which shall be offered in the form of required patient-related clerkships, are internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry, family practice, and surgery.
(iv) The curriculum shall be of at least 130 weeks in duration.
(v) There must be integrated institutional responsibility for the overall design, management and evaluation of a coherent and coordinated curriculum.
(vi) For schools that have geographically separated programs, the principal academic officer of each geographically remote site must coordinate the curriculum with an academic officer of the medical school responsible for organizing the educational program. [Board rule 163.1(12)(B)]
This is a substantial burden both on the applicant and on the school, as much of the information must come directly from the school.
All I am arguing is all subsequent individuals need not show their education is substantially equivalent. Now, they will need to meet Board rules regarding clerkships, which is somewhat reasonable.
I also do not feel that it is proper just because one state may disapprove of the education that is a reason that Texas should not allow someone to practice in our state. The Texas Board bases no other criteria on what other state has done other than current, active disciplinary action. There are lots of doctors who have licenses in other states what we do not permit to practice in Texas. This rule is without merit.
If the Board chooses to keep this rule, there are rules that provide a away around this blockade. See Board rule 163.2(c)(4)(B).
