Wednesday, February 29th, 2012 10:44 am

Health-Care Licensing

Loosening current licensing restrictions on the range of services that nurses, physician assistants, dental hygienists and pharmacists are permitted to perform would help patients on balance, because the additional safety risks would be small compared to the decreased costs in waiting time and fees.

Responses
 

Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel
Participant University Vote Confidence Comment Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu Daron Acemoglu MIT Agree 2
Bio/Vote History
         
Alesina Alberto Alesina Harvard Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Altonji Joseph Altonji Yale Agree 2
Bio/Vote History
         
Auerbach Alan Auerbach Berkeley Uncertain 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Autor David Autor MIT Agree 8
Lots of evidence that occupational licensing is excessive. But I cannot speak specifically about the medical profession.
-see background information here
Bio/Vote History
         
Baicker Katherine Baicker Harvard Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Bertrand Marianne Bertrand Chicago Uncertain 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Chetty Raj Chetty Harvard No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Chevalier Judith Chevalier Yale Agree 8
There is some evidence on these issues; there is less study of this than one might hope.
Bio/Vote History
         
Currie Janet Currie Princeton Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Cutler David Cutler Harvard Strongly Agree 10
The IOM has summarized all the evidence, and it shows this.
Bio/Vote History
         
Deaton Angus Deaton Princeton Strongly Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Duffie Darrell Duffie Stanford Uncertain 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Edlin Aaron Edlin Berkeley Strongly Agree 9
Tort law is a plenty good safeguard for our safety.
Bio/Vote History
         
Eichengreen Barry Eichengreen Berkeley Uncertain 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Fair Ray Fair Yale Agree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Goldberg Pinelopi Goldberg Yale No Opinion
If licensing restrictions reflect training requirements, it is not clear that lowering training standards would be beneficial.
Bio/Vote History
         
Goldin Claudia Goldin Harvard Strongly Agree 9
Bio/Vote History
         
Goolsbee Austan Goolsbee Chicago Agree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Greenstone Michael Greenstone Chicago Uncertain 3
there seems little doubt that licensing restrictions raise costs but there is only a little evidence on the safety risks.
Bio/Vote History
         
Hall Robert Hall Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Holmström Bengt Holmström MIT Uncertain 3
Economic logic suggests too tight licensing because of lobbying by affected professionals.
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoxby Caroline Hoxby Stanford No Opinion
This is a question to which only an economist in the field would know the best answer. Knowing what one knows is the essence of expertise.
Bio/Vote History
         
Judd Kenneth Judd Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Kashyap Anil Kashyap Chicago Agree 7
Everywhere else in the world people without the title "doctor" seem to be able to do more, seems like we should move in this way too.
Bio/Vote History
         
Klenow Pete Klenow Stanford Agree 3 Bio/Vote History
         
Lazear Edward Lazear Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Levin Jonathan Levin Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Maskin Eric Maskin Harvard No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Nordhaus William Nordhaus Yale Disagree 7
Finding the right balance is difficult, but a wholesale ban on licensing would on net confuse patients are probably be a net loss.
Bio/Vote History
         
Obstfeld Maurice Obstfeld Berkeley Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Rouse Cecilia Rouse Princeton Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Saez Emmanuel Saez Berkeley Uncertain 2
Bio/Vote History
         
Scheinkman José Scheinkman Princeton No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Schmalensee Richard Schmalensee MIT Strongly Agree 7
This is surely true for a small relaxation; for a very large relaxation risks would surely outweigh benefits.
Bio/Vote History
         
Shin Hyun Song Shin Princeton Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Stock James Stock Harvard Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Stokey Nancy Stokey Chicago Agree 5
There are surely some restrictions that could be loosened. Agreeing on which ones they are might be harder.
Bio/Vote History
         
Thaler Richard Thaler Chicago Agree 6
Pharmacists must be the most underemployed professionals. Lots of schooling to count pills. In France they actually do stuff.
Bio/Vote History
         
Udry Christopher Udry Yale Strongly Agree 8
A sensible approach in many cases is certification, which provides information, increases choice, and reduces costs.
-see background information here
Bio/Vote History
         
Zingales Luigi Zingales Chicago Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         

10 New Economic Experts join the IGM Panel


For the past two years, our expert panelists have been informing the public about the extent to which economists agree or disagree on important public policy issues. This week, we are delighted to announce that we are expanding the IGM Economic Experts Panel to add ten new distinguished economists. Like our other experts, these new panelists have impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters, and their names will be familiar to other economists and the media.

To give the public a broad sense of their views on policy issues, each new expert has responded to a selection of 16 statements that our panel had previously addressed. We chose these 16 statements, which cover a wide range of important policy areas, because the original panelists' responses to them were analyzed in a paper comparing the views of our economic experts with those of the American public. You can find that paper, by Paola Sapienza and Luigi Zingales, here. The paper, along with other analyses of the experts' views, was discussed during the American Economic Association annual meetings, and the video can be found here.

The new panelists' responses to these statements can be seen on their individual voting history pages. Our ten new economic experts are:

Abhijit Banerjee (MIT)
Markus K. Brunnermeier (Princeton)
Liran Einav (Stanford)
Amy Finkelstein (MIT)
Oliver Hart (Harvard)
Hilary Hoynes (Berkeley)
Steven N. Kaplan (Chicago)
Larry Samuelson (Yale)
Carl Shapiro (Berkeley)
Robert Shimer (Chicago)


Please note that, for the 16 previous topics on which these new panelists have voted, we left the charts showing the distribution of responses unchanged. Those charts reflect the responses that our original panelists gave at the time, and we have not altered them to reflect the views of the new experts.

We have also taken this opportunity to ask our original panelists whether they would vote differently on any of the statements we have asked about in the past. Several experts chose to highlight statements to which they would currently respond differently. In such cases, you will see this "revote" below the panelist's original vote. We think you will enjoy seeing examples of statements on which some experts have reconsidered.

As with the 16 previous statements voted on by new panelists, these "revote" responses are not reflected in the chart that we display showing the distribution of views for that topic: all the charts for previous questions reflect the distribution of views that the experts expressed when the statement was originally posed.

About the IGM Economic Experts Panel

This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. Statistics teaches that a sample of (say) 40 opinions will be adequate to reflect a broader population if the sample is representative of that population.

To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.

Finally, it is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist is an expert on a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's expertise that he or she feels unqualified to vote. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".

The Economic Experts Panel questions are emailed individually to the members of the panel, and each responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering.

Members of the public are free to suggest questions (see link below), and the panelists suggest many themselves. Members of the IGM faculty are responsible for deciding the final version of each week’s question. We usually send a draft of the question to the panel in advance, and invite them to point out problems with the wording if they see any. In response, we typically receive a handful of suggested clarifications from individual experts. This process helps us to spot inconsistencies, and to reduce vagueness or problems of interpretation.

The panel data are copyrighted by the Initiative on Global Markets and are being analyzed for an article to appear in a leading peer-reviewed journal.

chicago booth