Bill Description: House Bill 132 would enter Idaho into an interstate dietician licensure compact.
Rating: -2
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
House Bill 132 would create Section 54-3508A, Idaho Code, defining and entering the state of Idaho into an interstate dietician licensure compact. While interstate licensing compacts can make it easier for licensed individuals to practice in multiple states, the compact itself is full of regulations, which are antithetical to a free market. Occupational licensure, at its core, violates the rights of individuals — both providers and consumers — to engage in voluntary interactions and transactions without intrusion by the state.
Specifically troubling in this compact is a provision that would "create and establish a joint government agency whose membership consists of all member states that have enacted the compact known as the dietitian licensure compact commission."
The bill would task this commission with "the development, maintenance, operation, and utilization of a coordinated data system" and require member states to "submit a uniform data set to the data system on all individuals to whom this compact is applicable," "notwithstanding any other provision of state law to the contrary." This language gives the commission authority to overrule Idaho law regarding what information must be provided about licensees.
It further states that "the rules of the compact commission shall have the force of law in each member state" and member states are not allowed to overrule the commission's rules. Only "a court of competent jurisdiction" would be allowed to declare a rule invalid and only if "the compact commission exercised its rulemaking authority in a manner that is beyond the scope and purposes of the compact, or the powers granted hereunder, or based upon another applicable standard of review."
In case there is any doubt remaining about the undesirable nature of this compact, the bill says "any laws, statutes, regulations, or other legal requirements in a member state in conflict with the compact are superseded to the extent of the conflict."
Simply put, this bill would expand government. The better approach would be to simply extend "full faith and credit" to licensees in member states without creating a new interstate commission and giving it power to supersede Idaho law.
(-1)
Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers to entry into the market?
House Bill 132 would require that any state belonging to the compact "fully implement a criminal history record information requirement," including "the submission of fingerprints or other biometric-based information by applicants for the purpose of obtaining an applicant's criminal history record information from the federal bureau of investigation and the agency responsible for retaining that state's criminal records."
Requiring a biometric-based FBI background check creates a barrier to entry into the market that is not currently required of dietitians under Chapter 35, Title 54, Idaho Code.
(-1)
