Many of the arguments in favor of same-state licensure are only partially sound — or are completely false. By looking at 10 common reasons proponents want to require same-state licensing for peer reviews, we can conclude that same-state licensure improves neither the quality of peer review decisions nor treatment outcomes. The same-state question, unfortunately, may defer focus from the important question: How we can ensure high quality of peer review. To start, we should consider two important regulatory provisions:
• Disallow peer reviewers who have had their license suspended or removed in any state — not just their own state,
• Implement a process to refer poor practice decisions or lack of objectivity to the state in which the peer reviewer has his license.
For more thinking on the myths and truths in same-state peer review, see my full article on riskandinsurance.com