Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Health Professions
 
Board
Board of Medicine
 
chapter
Regulations Governing the Practice of Medicine, Osteopathic Medicine, Podiatry, and Chiropractic [18 VAC 85 ‑ 20]
Action Licensure of foreign physicians through provisional and restricted licenses
Stage NOIRA
Comment Period Ended on 4/23/2025
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
4/22/25  11:35 pm
Commenter: Bhushan H Pandya, MD, FACP

NOIRA for licensing of Internationally trained physicians
 

Dear Dr. Harp,

I am a Board certified International Medical Graduate (IMG) trained in the US and practicing in Danville Virginia for last 40 years. I am a member of the ABMS task force on Additional pathway for licensing of Internationally trained Physicians (ITP). I am also a delegate to the AMA House of delegates from Virginia and have testified in support of this issue on behalf of our delegation.

I had presented comments to the Advisory Commission set up by FSMB, ACGME and Intealth (ECFMG and FAIMER). I agree with the following guidance they have recommended:

Rulemaking authority should be delegated, and resources allocated, to the state medical board for implementing and evaluating any additional licensure pathways.

  • An offer of employment should be required for pathway eligibility. State medical boards should be authorized to define what is an appropriate clinical facility for the supervision and assessment of internationally trained physicians (ITPs) for their provisional licensure period.
  • ECFMG Certification and graduation from a duly recognized medical school should be required for pathway eligibility.
  • Completion of postgraduate training (graduate medical education) outside the United States should be required for pathway eligibility.
  • Possession of authorization from another country or jurisdiction to lawfully practice medicine in that country or jurisdiction, and at least three years of experience in medical practice should be required for pathway eligibility.
  • A limit on the physician’s time “out of practice” that is consistent with that state’s existing re-entry to practice requirements should be considered.
  • A successfully completed period of supervision and assessment by an employer should be required of ITPs to transition from provisional licensure to full licensure.
  • State medical boards should preserve their authority to assess each candidate for full and unrestricted licensure.
  • State medical boards implementing additional licensure pathways should collect and share data to evaluate the program’s effectiveness.

I look forward to contributing to the regulatory process that will hopefully help with Health manpower shortage area felt all over our Commonwealth by providing an option of a safe and high quality medical care to our communities.

Best regards,

Bhushan H. Pandya, MD, FACP

CommentID: 233840