On September 10, the Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee members are considering Bill S376, the Expanding Physician Access Act of 2025. This bill proposes to remove barriers for foreign doctors.
Our legislators are attempting to address the problem through new laws, and one of them is S376.
Take a look at the NC version, House Bill 67, and then read this article - Worse Than California North Carolina Opens Floodgates to Unvetted Foreign Doctors
Yes, we need more quality American doctors. Our legislators also need to cut back regulations on alternative healthcare and medical freedom, though that’s a discussion for another article.
Is S.376 really a conservative bill or even a helpful one as intended? (FYI: Conservative bills repeal laws and shrink government.)
At first read, it plays the part, dressed up in a conservative costume. It removes regulatory barriers, streamlines the process, and brings in more doctors. But let’s put on our conservative glasses and look closer.
The intent in Section 40-47-39(A): “The purpose of this section is to remove barriers that prevent high-quality, internationally licensed physicians from filling vacancies in this State, including in rural and primary care settings …”
“Remove barriers” sounds conservative. Remove barriers for what? Remove barriers so doctors from other countries can practice in America. Meanwhile, American doctors? Still stuck with the same obstacles. Did we just give up on them?
The intent statement should instead read like this: We are creating a shortcut for foreign doctors to work, most likely at a cheaper salary base, funneled straight into monopoly hospital systems, while claiming it is about rural care.
Teaching lesson: the word “rural” is the noble feel that sells the bill. It signals urgency and compassion.
Next, take a look at Section 40-47-39(C)(1): “The board shall grant a provisional license … to any international physician with an offer for employment as a physician at any healthcare provider that operates in the State.” Proposing to give more power to an unelected regulatory board under a state agency centralizes significant authority in the State Board of Medical Examiners to control the licensure of international physicians.
Definitions in Section 40-47-39(B)(4): “Healthcare provider” means an individual, entity, corporation, person, or organization, whether for profit or nonprofit, that furnishes, bills, or is paid for healthcare procedures or service delivery in the normal course of business, and includes, without limitation, health systems, hospitals, hospital-based facilities, freestanding emergency facilities, and urgent care clinics.
The phrase “and includes, without limitation” ties the broad opening back to large institutional players. That favors entities with the infrastructure to hire foreign doctors, navigate licensure paperwork, and provide the contractual backing the Board will expect. A two-doctor independent practice in rural Bamberg does not have that capacity. Prisma Health and MUSC do.
Big hospitals are primarily located in urban areas. So wouldn’t this bill, framed as rural-focused, end up channeling foreign doctors into hospital cartels instead?
Section 40-47-39(C)(3) adds: “Provisional licenses automatically are converted into full licenses … after three years of active practice in this State.” After three years without ever completing a U.S. residency? No additional review? No reassessment? Yes, S376 would require foreign physicians to pass all three steps of the USMLE exam to obtain a provisional license, but beyond that point, the state relies on their foreign residency or prior practice as a substitute for U.S. residency.
What if that residency was completed in a country with weak or corrupt oversight?
And then there is Section 40-47-39(D)(2): “Additional countries may be added … by the board.” Can the Board add more countries at any time? That is a great deal of control for an unelected board.
Here are some bonus questions to ask your legislators who are pushing for this bill.
How does the bill ensure that foreign physicians can clearly communicate with patients? S376 states: “(e) possesses basic fluency in the English language.” But what is basic fluency? Where in the bill is the guarantee that foreign physicians can demonstrate English proficiency and communicate effectively with patients? If patients already struggle to understand American doctors when it comes to medical diagnoses and treatment, what happens when language barriers are added to the mix?
If the Board can add countries at will, what protects South Carolina from approving physicians trained in nations openly hostile to the United States?
If hospitals and insurers can cut costs by relying on cheaper foreign labor, what incentive remains in the market to invest in training American doctors? Have we not learned anything from other industries distorted by cheap foreign labor?
There is no denying that we face a very real shortage of physicians. That fact deserves serious fixing. But is this the correct fix? Does handing more power to unelected boards, tethering foreign doctors to monopolistic hospital systems, and diluting investment in American doctors strengthen our healthcare system? (SC’s healthcare system could use plenty of strengthening.)
S.376’s position is that foreign physicians will help with the rural doctor shortage, yet it ignores the regulations and cost pressures that have already shuttered independent practices. As a result, doctors are funneled into medical empires. Until those barriers are lifted, the shortage will persist, and the risks to patient safety will get worse.
Bonus: S376 falls under Tips Two for Reading a Bill—Facilitate a Global Agenda. This goal is particularly evident in bills that address workforce needs, subsidize and entice large, often international business and industrial complexes to the detriment and at the expense of American citizens, as well as some education bills, DEI consideration, etc. This agenda is often seen in bills that are replicated in other states, obviously following a controlled plan that is deliberately and specifically customized for each targeted state to further a greater agenda than might otherwise be evident.
To read more on Tips for Reading a Bill, click HERE.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or professional advice. ConservaTruth assumes no liability for any actions taken based on this content. Read more.
Subscribe to ConservaTruth's Email Newsletter for curated insights on South Carolina's legislative activities and conservative viewpoints, delivered straight to your inbox! With vetted and easy-to-understand information, our newsletter empowers you to become an informed and engaged citizen, actively participating in safeguarding our cherished Constitutional values. Don’t miss out on crucial updates—join our community of informed conservatives today!
Comments