close

As the country continues to return to normal from the Covid pandemic, issues of public policy arise and call for the attention of lawmakers to address. School policy has become one of those issues.

John Kristof of EdChoice has released a report that offers insight into the opinions and attitudes of a nationally representative sample of parents regarding schooling and its relation with Covid currently.

For one, the data suggests that parents are becoming more comfortable with sending their kids back to school for in-person learning. According to the report, 63 percent of parents polled showed that they were either “very comfortable” or “somewhat comfortable” with sending their kids back to school in person. Moreover, that number has risen from the previous month by 6 points.

Two possible explanations can come from this. Either parents see that the Covid situation is improving and, therefore, are becoming more comfortable, or they see no change and are gradually becoming more comfortable with sending their kids anyway. While the former is more likely, either option demonstrates that government simply cannot stick with the status quo. Something has to change to promote the education of children. Therefore, this issue ought to be a top issue for state legislatures.

Additionally, the data shows that parents view government institutions as the worst entities to respond to the pandemic. Even state governments rank similarly with national institutions such as the federal government, media, and national corporations. A third of those polled found state government as an obstacle rather than an aid to an individual’s way of life.

As things gradually return back to normal, people as a whole may become impatient with the government education system's inability to get closer to normal as well. Unfortunately, government is often an obstacle to meaningful change, so the default should allow more individuals and their families to make their own choices. This promotes true educational freedom.

It is important to note that the slight increase in support of mandatory masks does not necessarily provide a direct correlation with support for government mask mandates in schools. As time moves on and children continue to remain either out of school or in some Covid-related alternative, parents are gradually going to show support for any requirement for in-school learn as their desire to return to in-school learning increases.

 The prospect of masks protecting children at school is inconclusive at best, and some have suggested that they do more harm than good. However, if parents are given a choice between in-school learning with masks or some temporary solution that they think can no longer work, they will likely show support for masks. However, it is possible that such support is given as a concession rather than a preference.

The greatest takeaway from this report is that children have been severely affected by the pandemic. If a child was required to quarantine from school, most had to be quarantined from school multiple times. The average number of quarantines per child was about 2.54. This is a massive disruption to the development and education of the child.

Ultimately, as it approaches K-12 education policy, the state should adopt a philosophy of freedom and choice for families. Seventy-four percent of parents support school choice programs such as Educational Savings Accounts (ESAs). Additionally, parents desire to expand and promote programs such as school vouchers and charter schools to open up options for students as we exit the pandemic. These programs should be expanded to promote more options for families. Government often has a track record of inhibiting freedom. School choice reforms are an opportunity to change this trajectory and provide educational opportunities to families in the state.

Certifications and training are a key part of occupational regulations. Amid the pandemic, many occupational licensing authorities have allowed applicants to take required education courses online instead of exclusively in-person. While online courses are a good step in the right direction, additional technologies could also carry potential.

Many occupational licensing structures require individuals to take certain courses to get certified and then take additional continuing education courses. In the not-so-distant past, applicants would have to take required education and certification courses at the physical places and time determined by government authorities. In addition to the licensing fees and other burdens, such courses often required individuals to set aside time away from their usual course of business for travel. Sometimes they had to drive many hours to attend a class or take a test.

This can change in the context of online courses and certification. While some licensing, certification, and continuing education generally still occur in an in-person context, there has been an expansion in online courses, particularly after the pandemic. Facing the pandemic reality that many individuals would not be able to meet continuing education and/or licensing requirements without online accommodations, several regulatory boards were all but forced to allow for online integration.  

These advances suggest that additional technologies could also carry the potential for occupational licensing reform. For instance, virtual reality (VR) headsets are already being used in a variety of extremely technical contexts, with a great degree of success. The military has used VR to prepare soldiers for the battlefield. The medical sector has used VR training for emergency scenario simulation. Industrial and manufacturing sectors have incorporated VR into technical training, and first responders have utilized it for emergency preparedness.

These technologies, such as online learning and VR have expanding adoption, and there has been real-world success -including in some high-intensity fields. It would make sense for government regulatory agencies to incorporate such technologies as an option in their approval processes. Of course, not all applicants would prefer to use such technologies for their licensing or continuing education requirements, and legacy options should remain available. Yet, having new technologies also approved as an acceptable option for occupational certification and education could encourage occupational participation from tech-savvy citizens -especially the younger generation. Mississippi and other states would do well to consider incorporating emerging technologies into its regulatory licensing systems. New technologies are continually proving their value for training and certification. Occupational licensing is already a big enough burden. The government should make every effort to incorporate effective technologies so that its citizens have greater flexibility in their occupational certification and education.

Recent months have seen an economy that is continually struggling with supply chain driven shortages. As the world grapples with these challenges, the evidence suggests that much of these shortages are because of central economic planning based on Covid-driven public policy.

In the complex world of the pandemic, Americans have been inundated with information on the possible causes. Fires in key factories, natural disasters, and the like have been propounded as contributing factors in combination with the “effects” of the Covid pandemic. Yet, the question must be asked how much of these factors are attributable to the effects of people actually falling ill. While the tragedy of these cases is very real, the pandemic's effects have been grossly aggravated by central government planning that determined “essential” and “non-essential” businesses.  

Lessons from the Soviet Union Show that Central Planning Leads to Shortages

In order to understand how central government planning causes chronic supply chain shortages, it is helpful to heed the lessons of the Soviet Union. While the concept of shortages is relatively new to Americans, the Soviet Union saw consistent shortages, primarily for consumer goods. Long lines had many Soviet citizens waiting for simple items ranging from clothing to toilet paper. Shortages were so common, that when Soviet Parliament member Boris Yeltsin visited Houston in 1989, he was astonished by how well the grocery stores shelves were stocked, almost convinced that it all must have been staged just for his visit.

There was a reason that a shortage of consumer goods was a way of life in the Soviet Union. Using the Socialist economic model, the Soviet government engaged in centralized economic planning that prioritized certain sectors over others. The Soviets did this via 5-year plans that gave specific priority on outputs for certain sectors. While the plans were made to look good for paper and propaganda, such plans failed to account for unexpected circumstances and were determined by the minds of bureaucrats instead of being informed by the market.

Supply Chains Have Had Disruptions Before, Without Such Widespread Impact

In 2021, a casual read of the headlines could lead one to believe that many of the economic disruptions brought about by Covid just so happened to occur along with other unprecedented supply chain disruptions occurred that were unrelated to Covid. Yet, it is important to note that factory fires, hurricanes, labor shortages, blockages of shipping canals, geopolitical instability, and other factors are not new. These challenges have consistently occurred over the course of modern history.

While the effects of such challenges do have a real impact, the ability of the supply chain to respond to these challenges is the real test of strength. In former days, supply chain shortages in the free world were usually short-term and relatively isolated to specific sectors.

The laws of supply and demand were generally able to alleviate the pressures. As the demand for certain products went up, the cost went up as well.  In turn, these additional revenues helped alleviate supply chain challenges. Lower then return as the supply chain system adjusted to the new demand. But as the lessons from the Soviet Union demonstrate, this can only happen when a free market is permitted to operate and respond quickly to unexpected challenges.

 “Disaster Socialism” is a Prelude to Supply Chain Disaster

With Covid, many at the highest levels of government decided that the circumstances justified central economic planning based upon a model that many admittingly called “disaster socialism.” “Disaster socialism” is the idea that the free market cannot operate properly in a time of disaster and that government must implement economic controls. Under this application of “disaster socialism” certain businesses found themselves being labeled as either “essential” or “non-essential.” Meanwhile, the federal government did a massive welfare expansion program and moved America forward towards a more thorough economic reset.

Initially, the long-term effects of such policies were not as easily detected. The government simply pumped out money and mailed out stimulus checks to keep the economy afloat. But it wasn’t long before the realities of this arbitrary central planning began to take effect, particularly on the supply chain.  

The Model of Covid Central Planning

The federal, state, and local governments adopted a two-pronged model of central economic planning during Covid. While not all jurisdictions applied this model in the same way, the basic tenets were the same. This economic planning model employed:

  1. Simultaneous ban on the operations of certain businesses that were arbitrarily deemed “non-essential.”
  2. Pouring federal funds into the economy through unprecedented government spending.

In the area of sector-specific planning, governments determined what elements of the economy would operate based on their priorities. For instance, if a state government could determine that liquor stores should be open (note, a large source of tax revenue) while restaurants should be closed.

While state governments were primarily responsible for lockdowns and the closure of “non-essential businesses,” the federal government stepped in. It provided the additional element of central planning that called for an influx of funds in the economy. This was accomplished through massive spending plans.

The primary effects of such spending plans brought about inflation combined with a decrease in active workforce participation. Regardless of whether or not they had been directly labeled as a “essential” or “non-essential,” all businesses now had to grapple with the consequences of inflated prices and a labor shortage.

The Effects of Central Planning on the Supply Chain

All of these factors come full circle back to the principle of supply and demand and its impact on the supply chain. The logistics sector has now been hit by the same collateral effects of central planning that other sectors have been impacted by. Furthermore, the logistics sector had to deal with additional challenges due to government restrictions on movement and a lack of raw materials.  

As the demand for products increases to at or above pre-pandemic levels, the logistics sector has to deal with that demand while still attempting to address the backlog brought about by the effects of lockdowns and a decreased workforce. Like the failed socialism and central planning of the Soviet Union, the American economy is seeing what happens when those in power attempt to orchestrate the economy.

Yet there is a contrast to such failure, in 1776, the economist Adam Smith referred to the forces of the free market as an “invisible hand” that brings about the best outcomes for the economy and consumers. Such a belief in the free market has driven America forward. The whims of central government planning have failed the test of history. To see an effective supply chain in the future, America would do well to return to the free market principles of its past.   

A recent proposal from the Biden administration has called for the Internal Revenue Service to have more direct access to the bank accounts of Americans. Many of the leaders on both sides of the aisle in Washington have advocated for data privacy. Yet, this proposal has a hidden technological danger as it threatens the data privacy and protection of Americans’ bank accounts.

In the backlash against the proposal that certain American bank account information be reported directly to the IRS, much of the opposition to the proposal has centered around the danger of federal agents utilizing bank data to put Americans under financial surveillance. All of these concerns are well-grounded and legitimate. However, it is important to also consider that having sensitive bank account data centralized under one government agency carries an enormous cybersecurity risk.

Despite the claims that the proposed concept would help curb tax fraud, there has been no widely circulated data on how much it would cost the IRS to protect the data adequately. Worse yet, no analysis has been conducted on the enormous financial damage that taxpayers could face in the event of a catastrophic data breach.

The IRS has been a target of hackers for decades. However, a new influx of data in this level provides many more entry points and for hackers and a greater incentive for hacking operations to occur. There are multiple angles to consider this from.

Centralized bank account data would be a high-value target for hackers

In the first place, the IRS possessing a centralized repository of American bank account data would invite hackers' operations. Even though the proposal has not yet fully specified the exact type of bank account data that would be included, there would still be a danger. The advocates for this policy have insisted that the bank account data being gathered would be fairly limited. Yet, even the smallest amount of bank account information can be leveraged by hackers.

For instance, a hacker might get something as basic as a list of bank account numbers, the total amount of annual funds for each account, and the email addresses associated with the accounts. Then, the hacker could use this information to go after specific targets such as high-value bank account owners, retirees and elderly, and other particular victims with spear-phishing campaigns, spoofing, and additional attack methods.

These hackers could come from two primary sectors, foreign government-sponsored attacks, and criminal cybergangs. Although these entities utilize stolen data for different purposes, the danger is the same.

Government-sponsored attacks to get bank account information would carry several incentives for foreign governments. Foreign intelligence agencies can use hacking as a data harvesting method and then use that broad information to hone in on specific individuals. In the context of bank account data, simply having a confirmation of which business, political, and military leaders own specific bank accounts could serve as a precursor to initiate hacking operations against the bank itself in order to get more detailed information on specific individuals. In addition to intelligence, government-sponsored hackers could also potentially use this information in attempts to steal from the bank accounts themselves.

Non-government cybergangs would also have many uses for a centralized repository of IRS bank account data. While foreign government hackers often have a focus on gathering data for intelligence purposes, organized cybercrime primarily focuses on financial incentives. If they got access to this IRS bank account data, hackers could use this to single out potential victims with high-value accounts. Furthermore, by knowing where potential victims have bank accounts, hackers can use additional methods, such as installing fake banking apps made to look like the victim’s home bank.

Government agencies have a history of data breaches

Even if an organization has a perfect track record of cybersecurity with no major incidents, there is still always the possibility that a breach will occur. Yet, the federal government does not even remotely have such a track record. It is also notable that while different agencies have fared differently, the IRS has become especially notorious for a track of record filled with data breaches and compromises.

 According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, in 2016 the IRS encountered $12.2 billion in attempted identity theft tax fraud and paid out at least 1.6 billion in fraudulent refunds. This is a 13 percent fail rate. The report also found that the IRS had not followed best practices for cybersecurity. If the IRS cannot even always determine that they are issuing a refund to the right person, there is little reason to think that bank account data would be protected from fraudsters.

Yet, it is also important to recognize that the IRS is not in a siloed cyber-ecosystem with data sharing that is exempt from the generalized attacks that have targeted multiple agencies across the federal government. Current federal law explicitly permits the IRS to share data with federal, state, and local agencies for a variety of purposes, and it has been doing so for years. In effect, this means that no matter how strict the IRS cybersecurity standards were, there would always be a possibility that another government agency could have a data breach, and jeopardize the shared IRS bank account data.

For instance, in the recent and massive SolarWinds hack, the federal government saw data compromises across numerous agencies and departments. These entities included the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Department of the Treasury, the National Finance Center, and several others. Thus, even though the IRS claims that it was not affected by the SolarWinds hack, this does not mean that taxpayer data in possession of these other agencies remained secure.

The potential for third-party backdoors

The GAO report also determined that one of the primary security flaws in the system was the policies of the IRS that permitted third-party software to submit and extract data with a lack of adequate cyber oversight. Specifically, the report found that much of the third-party tax preparation software had critical flaws that could lead to data compromises.

If the IRS required banks to report their account data, additional third-party software would likely be introduced into the IRS technology ecosystem in order to deal with the sheer volume of bank data. If the IRS had multiple third-party data reporters approved for integration with its system, each reporting software would stand as potential security fail point. 

The broader effects of this would be twofold. On the one hand, if the IRS was too lax in its security compliance requirements, there would be a higher likelihood of taxpayer bank account data breaches. On the other hand, if the IRS implements extremely stringent cybersecurity compliance mandates, there could be an increased cost to the banks themselves and the third-party data reporting software developers.

Government financial monitoring of citizens has principle issues and technical dangers

It goes against the most basic American principles of limited government and due process for the IRS to presumptively monitor the bank accounts of citizens. Given that the entire policy proposal is based upon a faulty foundation, it comes as little surprise that the proposal carries extreme technological and security risks as well. Americans should be able to have confidence that their private bank account information will not be centralized in the hands of a government agency with a history of leaking data.

The Chinese government recently clamped down on cryptocurrencies. Owning or brokering Bitcoin is now frowned upon, and mining digital money has been outlawed all together.

This isn’t the first time that China has acted to keep out digital innovation. For years, China has blocked her citizens from using many of the social media platforms and search engines – Facebook, Google, Twitter – that are ubiquitous elsewhere. 

The actions of the Chinese government might impact these digital innovations in the short terms. But in the longer term, the behavior of the Chinese government does more to hinder China.

Following the move against cryptocurrency, the price of Bitcoin plunged. But, as of writing this, Bitcoin has bounced back. China might have developed her own indigenous alternative to Google and Facebook. Like all state approved monopolies, China’s clunky social media giants might not find it as necessary to innovate.

China has a long history of keeping innovation out. Whatever effect this might have had on the outside world, it ensured China fell behind. I suspect we are seeing the start of something similar today.

From the late 1970s until about 2015, China seemed to have escaped her authoritarian trap. Under Deng Xiaoping, Chinese rulers placed limits on their own authority. The politburo stopped trying to run everything, turning a blind eye when farmers gradually abandoned collectivized farming. China began to grow. 

For three fleeting decades, maritime provinces were given more autonomy and special economic zones allowed to decide their own rules. After 1997, with Hong Kong once again Chinese, there were even two distinctive legal systems. Chinese output soared. 

But under President Xi many of these reforms have been reversed. Hong Kong’s autonomy has been treated as an affront and eradicated. Deng’s term limits have been cast aside. Officials in Beijing have become increasingly interventionist and authoritarian.

This same mindset has now been applied to cryptocurrencies. Rather than let crypto develop, the Chinese state seems determined to nationalize the innovation, introducing a state digital ledger, and banning the non-state alternatives. 

In the manner of a Medieval monarch, China’s government is becoming increasingly hostile towards its own entrepreneurs, as Jack Ma and co have discovered. As often happens when you attack the wealth creators, you begin to get less wealth creation. 

For as long as anyone can remember, we have been told that China is the coming power. China would, it was often said, eclipse America and the West. I doubt it. 

China seems to me to be in a trap of her own making. Far from being the Chinese century, I suspect future historians writing about the early twenty first century will note how China under Xi cut herself off from outside innovation and fell behind.  

China might not be the rising power we once imagined. I am not sure that that makes her any less dangerous. Wannabe great powers that aren’t quite as powerful as they would like to be are often far more threatening to the international order than those that actually are.

On practically every level, America has been a shining display of freedom and prosperity. According to the vision of its Founders, the nation has shined as a beacon of hope to a world full of tyranny and hardship. Despite these successes, America’s legacy has been under attack over the last several years.

With a focus on the failures of an imperfect but inspiring history, revisionist historians have attempted to paint the nation as a society that was ultimately built on oppression and evil. Yet, such claims do not hold validity when you look at the track record of the country.

In 1630, the world was filled with empires and monarchs. In Europe, several wars overwhelmed a continent plagued by imperial rivalries. The Ottoman Empire stretched from Turkey to Sudan with the rule of an iron fist. Spain and Portugal imposed a reign of terror over Latin America. The nations existed for their rulers. Meanwhile, far from the centers of world activity, a few dozen settlers quietly sailed up the Charles River into Massachusetts, led by John Winthrop. With a vision for a righteous society of liberty and justice, Winthrop proclaimed his aim that the settlement they established be a “city on a hill” and that “the eyes of all people are upon us.”

That settlement would become the city of Boston. One hundred forty-five years later, the War for Independence would begin 10 miles away with “the shot heard around the world.” In the wake of American victory and the founding of the nation, 245 years of history have shown that America has indeed been a “city on a hill” placed prominently in the view of the whole world.

In January 1989, President Ronald Reagan spoke of America in his farewell address as a “city on a hill.” True to its legacy, America had recently stood up to the might of the Soviet Union and led the free world in the fight to preserve freedom from the tentacles of Communism. Less than a year after Reagan’s farewell address, the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989. By 1992, the Soviet Union itself had collapsed and America still stood as “the shining city.”

The year is now 2021 and most of the tyrannical regimes of the last 245 years have been resigned to the dust bin of history. Direct assaults on Winthrop and Reagan’s shining city have all proved to be futile. But the enemies of liberty have not yet given up.

Instead of trying again to attack the shining city directly, new ideologies have instead questioned whether the shining city ever existed in the first place. Defining America as a nation of racism, oppression, and subjugation, this revisionist history threatens the very foundation of America through philosophies such as Critical Race Theory. The opponents of liberty know that the only way the nation can ever lose its exceptional legacy is by the destruction of its history. This is why so many advocate for the deconstruction of history.

The fact that America has truly been “a city on a hill” stands firm. The success of the nation refutes any claims to the contrary. The nation that is called “the land of opportunity,” the nation that countless scores have built their lives in, the nation that has stood for freedom of religion and speech, this country’s historical legacy cannot be changed.

Yet, this legacy can only continue if America looks back to the foundations of former days. Americans must teach their history so that future generations can know the nation’s exceptional story. Efforts must be made to push back against the revisionism of those who assault the nation’s legacy as a city on a hill. The future of the nation depends on it.   

Many across the state have advocated for the expansion of Medicaid with assertions that the state will “come out better” with expansion than without it. Despite these assertations, it is important to remember that while the federal government provides a match to state funds, it is ultimately the state that foots the bill.

Medicaid is a joint state and federally funded program initially created to provide government health care for limited portion of the population. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, better known as “ObamaCare” the states were given the option to further expand eligibility for their Medicaid programs and have that expansion “matched” by the federal government.

Mississippi has wisely opted not to expand Medicaid. The federal government matches Medicaid expansion, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the state to pay a portion of the costs of the program. Time and time again, Medicaid expansion is pitched as “free money” from the coffers of Washington, but this money is not free.  

In the midst of the debates surrounding matching rates, federal funding, and expansion enrollment projections, many often forget Medicaid expansion's influence on increasing private health insurance costs. This would only be heightened in the event of Medicaid expansion.

Since Medicaid reimbursement rates are often much lower than private-sector rates, many doctors then pass on the extra costs by charging even more for private sector insurance. These extra costs lead to higher premiums for private health insurance. In turn, more individuals leave private health insurance and go to “cheaper” government programs like Medicaid. This cycle repeats, and the more people that leave private health insurance, the more expensive it becomes as doctors try to recuperate costs through the private sector. This coincides with an analysis conducted by the Heritage Foundation on an Ohio Medicaid expansion proposal.

Many new Medicaid enrollees would also find that doctors are less likely to accept Medicaid than the private coverage the enrollee might have had. In a study done by the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC), the data concluded that as little as 66 percent of doctors accepted Medicaid in many states.

Thus, rather than expanding healthcare access, Medicaid expansion could actually cut down healthcare access as more and more individuals are forced to move to coverage that is not as widely accepted as private insurance. Despite this lower-quality health insurance, many individuals would have little choice in their leaving private health insurance due to the inflated premiums that would be influenced by Medicaid expansion in the first place.

When considering the question of Medicaid expansion, state leaders should take more into account than just the raw numbers that determine how much “free money” would come to Mississippi through Medicaid. Even if the Mississippi government “came out better” on a short-term basis, the long-term effects of government expansion ultimately interfere with the private sector and increase the cost of health insurance.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Jackson, MS): Critical race theory is being taught and promoted in Mississippi, according to a new report out today from the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

The report defines critical race theory as an ideology that maintains the United States is founded on racial supremacy and oppression. 

The report shows that critical race theory is a Marxist-like belief system. While conventional Marxists divide society between the oppressors and the oppressed, critical race theorists have replaced the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of white and black. 

“This makes critical race theory a deeply divisive ideology, as well as an extremist one,” explains Douglas Carswell, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. “Critical race theory ultimately seeks to overthrow the existing economic and political order and fundamentally change America.”

Today’s report reveals that:

“For all the assurances that critical race theory is not being taught in Mississippi, when you look at the evidence, it clearly is” added Carswell. “Mississippians need to know that a deeply dangerous and divisive ideology is being advanced through our public education institutions. Mississippi leaders need to take action to combat this.”

Today’s report sets out a six point plan to combat critical race theory. Included in the report’s recommendations are:

Read the full report HERE.


For more information or to request an interview with Mississippi Center For Public Policy President Douglas Carswell, please reach out to Stone Clanton, clanton@mspolicy.

The need for medical care has been highlighted by the pandemic more than ever before. As a way to expand their coverage and reach as many patients as possible, doctors from across the country poured into Mississippi over the internet. While this effort was successful, some long-term reforms can be made so that doctors can continue to serve their patients using this technology.

Like many technologies, the growth of telemedicine has been both a growth in innovation and growth in adoption. While the basic technology itself has existed since the 1990s, innovation and advancement have allowed for the technology to offer more and more to patients every year. During Covid, the technology has seen exponential development and growth.  

In light of COVID-19, the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure allowed out-of-state physicians to perform telemedicine even if they do not possess a Mississippi medical license. However, these physicians were only allowed to serve patients “with whom they already have a pre-existing doctor-patient relationship.” Furthermore, even this limited exception was allowed only “until action is taken to lift the [COVID-19] emergency.”  

Given the expansive potential for telemedicine, official state policy should permit doctors to serve Mississippians regardless of the doctor’s geographic location and regardless of whether or not there is a pandemic ongoing. Under current law, an individual must be licensed in Mississippi to practice telemedicine in the state. Doctors from 29 other states can already have their medical licenses reciprocated and practice in Mississippi through the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC). Despite this, current state policy does not permit telemedicine practice by doctors from the remaining 20 states.

Such a policy inhibiting Mississippians from receiving telemedicine care from these 20 states is a boundary to healthcare access. Several medical institutions with world-renowned expertise are located in states that are currently not included in the IMLC. Such institutions include Weill Cornell Medicine (New York), Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (California), H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center (Florida), and others. Yet, unless a doctor from these institutions happened to be directly licensed in Mississippi, they could not offer their services via telemedicine in the state.

Meanwhile, states like New Mexico enacted legislation  all the way back in 2001 that instructs the state medical board to issue “a telemedicine license to allow the practice of medicine across state lines to an applicant who holds a full and unrestricted license to practice medicine in another state or territory of the United States.” (emphasis added). New Mexico saw the importance of telemedicine even in 2001 when the technology was far less developed and proven. Telemedicine proved its effectiveness during Covid. There is no reason why the Mississippi legislature should not enact the same policy -despite the unfortunate fact that it would be doing so over 20 years after New Mexico.  

Mississippi's telemedicine policies are behind the technological curb. The state is long due for a reform that allows for the leverage of this modern technology so that no matter where they are in the country, doctors can serve Mississippians.

magnifiercross linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram