News

Two recent bills have been introduced in the US Congress, both of which purport to ease the immigration process for healthcare professionals.

HR 1929 has been introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Rep. Sensenbrenner has long been harsh on legalization of the undocumented, but sensible on immigration for professionals. Rep. Sensenbrenner has submitted versions of HR 1929 in past Congressional sessions, although none have ultimately become law. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) is a co-sponsor of the bill.

HR 1929 calls for 20,000 immigrant visas to be issued to Registered Nurses.Nurse’s immediate families would also get immediate immigrant visas, but they would not count against the 20,000 quota. In order to use these special visas, employers would be charged an additional $1,500, which would go to funding US nursing programs. These visas also would be available for Physical Therapists. This bill is very similar to several prior bills, notably the Schedule EX visa in the mid-2000s that allowed a one-time visa quota of 50,000 visas for nurses and their families.

HR 1933 has been introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas. Like Rep. Sensenbrenner, Rep. Smith has long been harsh on legalization of the undocumented, but sensible on immigration for professionals. Rep. Smith’s bill calls for the revival of the H-1C program. The H-1C program had been around since the mid-1990s and allowed 14 special hospitals the opportunity to employ nurses. These 14 hospitals are mainly in Texas, which explain Rep. Smith’s sponsorship. The H-1C expired in December 2009 and was not reenacted.

To: AAIHR Members

From: Bill DeVille, AAIHR President

Date: May 16, 2011

I am writing this letter to inform you about the status of our conflict with the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (FSBPT). 

As you are aware, the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (FSBPT) imposed a ban on NPTE examinations for candidates who were educated in the Philippines, India, Egypt, and Pakistan.   This was motivated by what the Federation considered to be clear evidence of widespread cheating by physical therapists from these countries.  In essence, the Federation believed that therapists from within these countries had an advantage over candidates from other countries.  To protect the integrity of the examination, they imposed a moratorium for candidates from these specific countries. 

Subsequently, the Federation created a separate examination for candidates from these countries (NPTE-i), and restricted their test dates to twice in 2011 and an uncertain number of test dates in future years. 

AAIHR understood the Federation’s concerns that motivated their actions and we share the Federation’s goal of protecting the integrity of the NPTE exam.   But we differed strongly on the Federation’s methods of achieving that goal.  Many of our members reached out to the Federation and to various state boards of physical therapy around the country to get the Federation to modify their plan.  Some of the key states that shared our concerns about the inequity of  the Federation’s approach to the crisis advised us to pursue a lawsuit in order to force the Federation to change course.

AAIHR recognized the importance of this issue to a variety of stakeholders including our members, their clients, and the therapist candidates that were not guilty of cheating.  Our board realized that no one company in our industry could effectively tackle this challenge alone.  So, our Regulatory Affairs Committee, on behalf of the members of the association, hired a law firm that was expert in litigating these sorts of challenges.  This firm researched the matter and conceived a legal strategy to fund a lawsuit against a particular state and the Federation by specific plaintiffs that were harmed by the Federation’s actions.  We identified plaintiffs in Georgia and filed the lawsuit. 

In December of last year, there was a court hearing.  The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and AAIHR against the state of Georgia and, by extension, against the Federation.  There were two outstanding charges against the Federation that the judge had not ruled on.  The Federation filed an appeal of the judge’s rulings on the counts for which the judge had ruled in our favor.  In late April, AAIHR and the Federation reached a settlement in which the Federation would drop its appeal of our legal victory in Georgia and we would drop our remaining charges against the Federation.

As a result of the efforts of many people including the AAIHR board, the regulatory affairs committee members, our associate member law firms, and others, we have achieved a significant victory for our members and stakeholders.  The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.   As a result of these efforts, new relationships between the AAIHR and the Federation are building.  Information, questions and ideas are being exchanged.  We have begun to move from opponents to collaborators on issues of mutual interest.  We believe our industry’s future is brighter as a result. 

This is not the first regulatory challenge to our industry, and I am confident it will not be the last.  However, our victory on this issue is significant in several significant ways. 

First, our success in this cause restores testing and levels the playing field for all therapists.  This benefits our members, our clients, and the many therapists that aspire to improve their careers and their lives by working in America.

Second, our legal victory stands as a significant precedent that will work to our industry’s advantage in future regulatory challenges.   This legal victory impacts a wide range of occupations including nurses, pharmacists, occupational therapists, etc.  Had we lost this legal battle, other regulatory bodies relative to other occupations could discriminate against foreign trained candidates for their licensure examinations.  

Third, it demonstrated the power of our association.  No one company in our industry could have accomplished what was achieved here.  Together, we stood up to a large, well-financed bureaucratic regulatory monopoly and we got them to refine their course.  As a result, our industry is stronger. 

The AAIHR board wishes to thank everyone that helped us achieve this milestone victory for our industry through their contributions to our regulatory fund or through the investment of their time working on this challenge. 

Well done.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).  Link to Reform Act HERE.